CAR_Public/160516.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 97



                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Birken-Sikora" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
ADCARE HEALTH: 3 Settlement Agreements Pending
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Defending Against "Wyche" Action
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Asked Court to Reconsider Class Action Ruling

AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over FLSA Violation
AMERICAN EAGLE: "Dioum" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Meal Breaks
AMERICAN HONDA: Order Closing Final Judgment Entered in "Soto"
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Off-Highway Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
AMERICAN IN-HOME: Faces "Eutsey" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Defending Gray-Boller Action in Minnesota
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Forwarded to Insurance
ARCHER WELL: Stanley Seeks Class Certification for MWD Workers
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Wages
AUTO DREAMS: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to Dist. New Jersey

AVANGRID INC: Certification of Shareholder Class Sought
BANAMEX USA: "Blatt" Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BANK OF AMERICA: "Naranjo" Class Action Settlement Has Final Okay
BEDNEST LTD: Recalls Bedside Sleepers Due to Fall Hazard
BELTLINE ROAD: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Lender-Placed Insurance

BEST BM: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Earned Wages Under FLSA
BHH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in "Hart" Suit
BHP BILLITON: Artificially Inflated ADRs, "Katz" Suit Alleges
BIG LOTS: Securities Action Entering Early Stages of Discovery
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Gender Discrimination

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Christie" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Manlove" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BRAND SCAFFOLD: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BRIM'S FOOD: "Scott" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BROOKLYN EVENTS: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Sexual Harassment

BRP US: Recalls Side-by-Side Off-Road Vehicles Due to Crash Risk
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Bid for Class Cert. of "Baha" Suit Granted
C&J ENERGY: Conditional Class Cert. of "Esparza" Suit Affirmed
CALERES INC: Settlement Payments Made in 2015 Fourth Quarter
CARIBOU COFFEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farnham" Suit Claims

CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Parties Reached Mediated Cash Settlement
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Ford" Settlement Administration Dates Changed
CHEMOIL ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Illinois Rules on "Matthews" Appeal
CHINA CAFETERIA: Faces Suit in Ga. for FLSA Violation

CHRYSLER: Recalls 300 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk
CITY DEE: "Zacarias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Suit Remanded to San Mateo
COLLECTIONS BUREAU: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied
CONN'S INC: Hearing on Securities Action Postponed Sine Die

COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Rules on "Maple" Appeal
COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Feeney" Sues Over Premium Cable Tie-up
CREDIT ONE: Minor "AD" Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Free Weight Benches
DAYBREAK VENTURE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ross" Action Claims

DELTA OUTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt,"Hamra" Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Anderson" Claims
DIGITEK COMPUTER: Joint Bid to Notify "Viciedo" Class Granted
EDAP TMS S.A.: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal
ELOCAL USA: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Phone Call Recording

EMSP LLC: Certification of Independent Contractors Class Sought
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Rent Overcharges
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Collection of Cancer Patients' Info
FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Delaware Over Reclassification of Share
FACEBOOK INC: Ill. Law Applies to Privacy Litigation, Court Says

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: "Rajagopalan" Settlement Has Initial Okay
FIRST NBC BANK: "Kinzler" Sues Over Share Price Drop
FIRST STUDENT: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
FITBIT: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over IPO
FORD: Recalls 2009 and 2008 Vehicle Models Due to Noncompliance

FORD: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
FORD: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
FORD: Recalls Explorer 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
FORD MOTOR: Bids to Dismiss "Philips" Warranty Claims Denied
FOUR OAKS: Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Motions

FOX INSTITUTE: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Employment Practices
GARDA CL: "Tessono" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
GARDA CL: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Defending Class Suits Over Heartland Acquisition
GRUPPO CHIARELLO: "Page" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage

HOBART SERVICE: Alcantar Supplements Bid for Class Certification
HUMPHREY RICH: Faces "Rojas-Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
IDENTIV INC: "Ruggiero" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
IDENTIV INC: Facing Shareholder Actions in N.D. Cal.
INTERSTATE CLEANING: "Rodriguez" Removed Suit to Dist. Florida

INTREXON CORP: "Gibrall" Sues Over Share Price Drop
JAVELIN MORTGAGE: Baltimore Court Rejects Injunction Bid
JIMMY MCDUFFIE: Faces "Scott" Suit in S.D. Ga.
JOE TEX XPRESS: "Crump" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.
JOHN WETZEL: Faces "Stradford" Suit in E.D. Penn.

KARL STORZ: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Use of Storz Morcellator
KENSINGTON PROFESSIONAL: Bid to Stay "Weisberg" Suit Denied
KS RENOVATION: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LA MESA RV: "Hoffer" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
LANNETT CO: Faces "Diamond" Lawsuit Over Digoxin "Price Fixing"

LEMON-X CORP: "Cuevas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: No Arbitration for "Nelson" Suit
LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Leyse" Case
LOS ANGELES HOUSING: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Nozzi" Suit
LUCKY FLUKE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

LUNA INNOVATIONS: Court Issued Final Order Approving Settlement
MATT PAK: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Release of Documents
MCCABE WEISBERG: Wright Seeks Certification of New Yorkers Class
MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Masuda" Suit in D.N.J.
MISTRAS GROUP: Mediation Talks Failed, Class Action Pending

MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls Pacifiers and Clips Due to Choking Hazard
MURRIETA POLICE: Certification Bid Taken Under Submission
NAPLES FLORIDA: "Fox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in E.D. Penn.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Players Sue Law Firms Over Settlement Proceeds

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Narrows Claims in "Cain" Civil Rights Suit
NEWPORT CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Chung" Action
NEWPORT CORPORATION: Faces "Pincon" Class Action in Nevada
NEW YORK TIMES: "Grant" Sues over Discrimination
NISSAN: Recalls Sentra 2013 Model

NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
NORTH MERRICK: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Law
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Zippel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NOVARTIS CORPORATION: "Dickerson" Suit Moved to Texas Dist. Ct.
NQ MOBILE: Final Order Approving Settlement Issued

NQ MOBILE: Still Defends "Finocchiaro" Class Action in N.Y.
NRA GROUP: Joseph Bernal Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
OGLETHORPE POWER: Still Defends Patronage Capital Litigation
OLD NATIONAL: Settlement of Merger Litigation Reached
OMARA LLC: "Coleman" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

OMG TACO CORP: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Marketing Conspiracy
PIERRE LANDSCAPE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Unpaid Wages
PD LONG ISLAND: "Servius" Suit Seeks Gratuities Under Labor Law
PETERBILT: Recalls 567 Vehicle 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance

PHILADELPHIA FINANCIAL: Suit by Fishman Insurance Trust Dismissed
PHOENIX LIFE: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Shevlin" Suit
PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: Certification of 2 "Flynn" Classes Sought
PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces "Dorrel" Suit Over Standford Scheme
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Wendelle Emily Seeks Class Certification

RALPH LAUREN: Faces "Dennis" Suit Over Misleading Ads
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Violated California Disabled Persons Act
REDFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Class Cert.
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Small Angle Grinders Due to Burn Hazard

RODALE INC: Sept. 7 Final Hearing on "Courter-Owens" Settlement
ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
SANTA FE NATURAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Deceptive Trade Practice
SHASTA: Recalls Travel Trailers 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
STANLEY M. GLASER: Faces "Carbonell" Suit in S.D. Fla.

STAR SPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages on Time, "Escobar" Suit Claims
STARBUCKS CORP: Chicago Suit Alleges Under-Filling of Iced Drinks
SUNRISE SENIOR: Sued in Ohio Common Pleas Ct. Over Discrimination
SUNRUN INC: "Baker" Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Retirement Plan Losses

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Reviewing Class Action Litigations
TEXAS: "Watson" Suit Over Traffic Cameras Remanded to State Court
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Huffman" Suit Status Hearing Set for July 25
TRINET GROUP: To Defend Against "Welgus" Securities Class Action
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Joint Underwriting Assoc. Litigations Update

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Litigation
TUMI STORES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
TWINGO LLC: Recalls Baby Carriers
U.S. QUALITY: "Harter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Suarez" FLSA Suit Sent to Arbitration

UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Suit v. Immigration
UNITED STATES: Just Compensation Ruling Entered
VINOCE VINEYARDS: Aug. 2 Case Management Conference Set
VIOLIN MEMORY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 26
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farnbauch" Suit in S.D. Ind.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Sherfey" Suit Remanded to Lorain County Court
VONAGE AMERICA: "Merkin" Suit Sent to Arbitration
WALGREENS BOOTS: Appeal in Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stage
WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Securities Case in Illinois
WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Suits Over Rite Aid Merger Pending

WARREN UNILUBE: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Grinenko" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing This Month on Motion to Dismiss
WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Transjugular Intrahepatic Shunt Pack
XPO LOGISTICS: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Birken-Sikora" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC, 21st Century
Oncology, Inc., 21st Century Oncology Management Services, Inc.,
and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC.

The case is captioned Gayle Birken-Sikora, Matthew Sikora, Susan
Lewin, Jeffrey Lewin, Jon Lokietz, Caryn Bendetowies, and Rita
Marx, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC,
21st Century Oncology, Inc.,21st Century Oncology Management
Services, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00334-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016).

The Defendants are in the business of providing radiation therapy
and cancer treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
      THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, PA
      5400 S University Dr Ste 413
      1920 N Commerce Pkwy
      Davie, FL 33328-5313
      Telephone: (954) 634-4355
      Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
      E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com
              mpascucci@elplawyers.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a consolidated amended
complaint has been filed in the consolidated cases, Kasper v. AAC
Holdings, Inc. et al. and Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court.  On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating these two described actions into one action.  On
February 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.  At this
time the Company cannot predict the results of this litigation
with certainty, and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss,
if any.  The Company believes the disposition of this action will
not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of
operations or consolidated financial position.

The Company is a provider of inpatient substance abuse treatment
services for individuals with drug and alcohol addiction.


ADCARE HEALTH: 3 Settlement Agreements Pending
----------------------------------------------
AdCare Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of March 28,
2016, all but three of the individual settlement agreements had
been approved and the settlement consideration paid to the
plaintiffs.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
captioned Amy Cleveland et al. v. APHR&R Nursing, LLC et al, filed
on March 4, 2015 with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th Circuit (the "Complaint"). The
Complaint asserted claims on behalf of a purported class
consisting of the residents at: (i) Stone County Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center; (ii) Bentonville Manor Nursing Home; (iii)
Heritage Park Nursing Center; (iv) Homestead Manor Nursing Home;
(v) River Valley Health and Rehabilitation Center; (vi) Northridge
Healthcare and Rehabilitation; (vii) Woodland Hills Healthcare and
Rehabilitation; (viii) West Markham Sub Acute and Rehabilitation
Center; and (ix) Cumberland Health and Rehabilitation Center, all
of which were managed by subsidiaries or affiliates of the
Company. The lawsuit alleged that the nine facilities were
understaffed during the class period which resulted in breaches or
violation of the nursing home admission agreements, the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Long Term Care Facilities
Residents' Act. The Complaint also included individual negligence
claims on behalf of former deceased resident Amy Cleveland. The
Complaint sought certification of a class of residents consisting
of all residents of the facilities during the class period,
judgment against all defendants for actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and attorney fees. With respect to the
allegations concerning Amy Cleveland, the Complaint sought damages
for injuries, general and special damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney fees and punitive damages.

On December 16, 2015, the Company's insurance carrier reached a
settlement with each of the individual plaintiffs on behalf of the
Company and all other defendants pursuant to which separate
payments are to be made by the Company's carrier to the
plaintiffs. The individual settlements are contingent on approval
by the probate courts having jurisdiction over the deceased
plaintiffs' respective estates, if applicable. As of March 28,
2016, all but three of the individual settlement agreements had
been approved and the settlement consideration paid to the
plaintiffs.

AdCare Health Systems, Inc. is a self-managed real estate
investment company that invests primarily in real estate purposed
for long-term care and senior living.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Defending Against "Wyche" Action
---------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will
vigorously defend against the case by Christopher Wyche.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the
Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in its public disclosures during the period from
September 5, 2014 through July 14, 2015, in violation of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the putative
class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and will vigorously defend against these allegations. While it is
reasonably possible that this matter ultimately could be decided
unfavorably to the Company, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the range of the possible losses, but they could be
material.

The Company is a manufacturer of high performance thermoplastic
corrugated pipe, providing a comprehensive suite of water
management products and superior drainage solutions for use in the
underground construction and infrastructure marketplace.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Asked Court to Reconsider Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion for reconsideration in a class action ruling.

The Company said, "we and certain of our current and former
officers are defendants in a purported class-action lawsuit
pending in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey
(the "Court"), brought on behalf of shareholders of the Company.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants between April 2, 2012
and November 6, 2014, or the Class Period, regarding the safety
and efficacy of Macrilen(TM), a product we developed for use in
the diagnosis of AGHD, and the prospects for the approval of the
Company's NDA for the product by the FDA. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of our Common Shares
during the Class Period and seek damages, costs and expenses and
such other relief as determined by the Court."

"On September 14, 2015, the Court dismissed the lawsuit stating
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, but granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend. On October 14, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint against us. We filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 11, 2015, because
we believe that the Second Amended Complaint also fails to state a
claim. The hearing of the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint occurred on January 19, 2016.

"On March 2, 2016, the Court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss the complaint in part and denying it in part.  The
Court dismissed certain of our current and former officers from
the lawsuit.  The Court allowed the claim that we omitted material
facts from our public statements during the Class Period to
proceed against us and our former CEO who departed in 2013, while
dismissing such claims against other current and former officers.
The Court also allowed a claim for "controlling person" liability
to proceed against certain current and former officers.  We
disagree with the Court's decision and we filed a motion for
reconsideration on March 16, 2016.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot predict the
outcome. Furthermore, we may, from time to time, be parties to
other litigation in the normal course of business. Monitoring and
defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, is
time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to
fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In
addition, legal fees and costs incurred in connection with such
activities may be significant and we could, in the future, be
subject to judgments or enter into settlements of claims for
significant monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests
could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have
a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations
and financial position."


AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO TAMAYO DIAZ, DARIEL FONTELA, NELSON MENDEZ, JOSE REYES,
ALBERTO RUIZ, ARIAN RODRIGUEZ, and LUIS VEGA BARROSO, Plaintiffs,
vs. AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS, INC., and ALEXANDER E. NAPOLES,
individually, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-21565-FAM (S.D. Fla., May
2, 2016), alleges violation of the overtime provisions, minimum
wage and record keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Al-Flex Exterminators is in the business of pest control.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Domingo C. Rodriguez, Esq.
     RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICE, LLC
     2121 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 430
     Miami, FL 33134
     Phone: (305)774-1477
     Fax: (305)774-1075
     E-mail: domingo@rlomiami.com


AMERICAN EAGLE: "Dioum" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mamadou Dioum, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Eagle Protective
Services, Inc.; and, Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC613922 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, meal period penalties, other penalties, injunctive
and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' 2 fees and
costs in violation of the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to
provide all proper meal periods, and timely meal breaks of not
less than 30 minutes per five hour work period. The Defendants
violated the law by failing to pay wages and/or overtime for all
hours worked.

American Eagle provides security, facilities maintenance, hospital
maintenance, training, and waste disposal services to federal and
state government agencies and businesses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Order Closing Final Judgment Entered in "Soto"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston issued an order closing final judgment on the
case captioned ALEX SOTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-01377-SI (N.D. Cal.).

On March 27, 2014, following the March 21, 2014 Final Approval
Hearing in the class action settlement, the court issued an Order
Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Application
for Attorneys' Fees, and Class Representative Payment, and Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.  The Final Order
and Judgment approved the settlement described in the Settlement
Agreement.

On December 7, 2015, for good cause shown, the court issued a
supplemental order granting a Joint Motion by the parties and
issued an Order Partially Reopening the Final Judgment for the
Sole Purpose of Providing Direct Notice to Settlement Class
Members in Washington State to Whom Direct Notice was
Inadvertently Not Made.  The supplemental order partially reopened
the Final Order and Judgment solely as to the omitted class
members.

After a supplemental hearing held on April 22, 2016, Judge Illston
found that the parties and the settlement administrator have fully
complied with their respective obligations as set forth in the
Supplemental order.

A full-text copy of Judge Illston's May 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/mpkYxC from Leagle.com.

Alex Soto, Vince Eagen, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell
-- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, Eugene Tompkins -- gtompkins@bm.net -- Berger and Montague,
P.C., Matthew Justin Bonness, Berk Law PLLC, Shanon Jude Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC, pro hac vice, Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com --
Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Lawrence Deutsch --
ideutsch@bm.net -- Berger and Montague P.C., pro hac vice &
Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
Lawrence Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho -- dcho@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
Denise A. Smith-Mars, Loeb & Loeb LLP & Michael Brian Shortnacy
-- mshortnacy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Off-Highway Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Company Inc., of Torrance, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 3,300 2016 Honda Pioneer 1000 side-by-
side recreational off-highway vehicles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front door can open unexpectedly while the vehicle is in use,
posing a risk of injury to occupants.

This recall involves model year 2016 Honda Pioneer 1000 side-by-
side recreational off-highway vehicles. The ROVs are motorized
off-road vehicles with a steering wheel, a gas pedal, a brake
pedal, bucket or bench seats, seat belts and an occupant
protection structure. The recalled ROVs were sold in three-seat
and five-seat models in red, silver or camouflage color. "HONDA"
is printed on the front grill and rear tail gate. "Pioneer 1000"
is printed on the sides of the vehicle near the tailgate.  The
model and serial numbers are on a certification label located at
the top rear of the left front wheel well. The following
model/types and serial number ranges are included in this recall:

  Model    Type    Serial Number Range                     Seats
  -----    ----    -------------------                     -----
  M5P      A       1HFVE0405G4001087 - 1HFVE0400G4001806   5
  M5D      A       1HFVE0420G4003427 - 1HFVE0420G4003427   5
  M5D      A       1HFVE0421G4003470 - 1HFVE0421G4003470   5
  M5D      A       1HFVE0429G4003488 - HFVE0427G4004087    5
  M5D      2A      1HFVE0467G4000723 - 1HFVE0461G4000782   5
  M3       A       1HFVE0486G4000665 - 1HFVE0485G4000964   3
  M3P      A       1HFVE04A7G4002444 - 1HFVE04A6G4003603   3
  M5P      AC      1HFVE04H6G4000181 - 1HFVE04HXG4000300   5
  M3       AC      1HFVE04L4G4000121 - 1HFVE04L9G4000180   3
  M3P      2AC     1HFVE04N9G4000181 - 1HFVE04NXG4000240   3
  M5D      3A      1HFVE04P1G4000063 - 1HFVE04P1G4000242   5
  M5D      3AC     1HFVE04R6G4000061 - 1HFVE04R7G4000120   5

Honda has received one report of an unexpected door-release
incident during a dealer set-up of the vehicle. No injuries have
been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/0iWdCz

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A and sold at
Authorized Honda Powersports dealers nationwide from February 2016
through April 2016 for between $14,000 and $17,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact their local authorized Honda dealer to schedule an
appointment to have the original front door striker plates removed
and replaced, free of charge.


AMERICAN IN-HOME: Faces "Eutsey" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dradean Eutsey, and those others that are similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. American In-Home Care, LLC, Defendant, Case 5:16-
cv-00310-JA-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

American In-Home Care, LLC is an in-home care provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
     Tyler L. Gray, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
     900 East Moreno Street
     Pensacola, FL 32503
     Phone: (850) 437-9600
     Fax: (850) 437-0906
     E-mail: civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com
             jj@talbottlawfirm.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Defending Gray-Boller Action in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that a
complaint was filed on November 6, 2015, in the Minnesota District
Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, by David Gray and Michael
Boller, purporting to bring suit derivatively on behalf of the
Company against twelve current and former officers and directors
of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties based on substantially similar allegations to those
asserted in Mr. Feola's putative securities class action
complaint, and that the defendants have been unjustly enriched as
a result thereof. The complaint seeks damages, disgorgement, an
award of attorneys' fees and other expenses, and an order
compelling changes to the Company's corporate governance and
internal procedures. This matter has been stayed by the court,
pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, until the United States
District Court for the Central District of California determines
the legal sufficiency of Jason Feola's complaint or other
specified developments occur in that case.

"This matter has been submitted to our insurance carriers," the
Company said.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Forwarded to Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that the case
by Jason Feola has been forwarded to its insurance carriers.

On March 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola,
individually and as a representative of a putative class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling
Centers of America, Inc. and certain current and former officers
of the Company.  Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer
agreement with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240
shares of the Company's common stock for $984 in total
consideration.

On May 7, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants were
served the complaint. In July 2015, the Company and the individual
defendants received an amended complaint. The complaint alleges
that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and
filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of
Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2015, the court held a hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint.

On November 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California entered an order granting the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court's order
provided that the dismissal was without prejudice and that the
plaintiffs could file an amended complaint within 21 days of the
issuance of the order.

On December 15, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
were served with a second amended complaint. In January 2016, we
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and expect
a court hearing on the motion to dismiss to be held in May 2016.
This matter has been forwarded to our insurance carriers and we
intend to contest vigorously the claims made in the complaint.


ARCHER WELL: Stanley Seeks Class Certification for MWD Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL STANLEY, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARCHER
WELL COMPANY INC. and GREAT WHITE PRESSURE CONTROL LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00370 (S.D. Tex.), files a motion for conditional
certification asking the Court to issue an approved notice to a
class of "similarly situated" aggrieved employees.

Mr. Stanley filed this proposed collective action lawsuit under
the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages that
were wrongfully denied to him and a class of similarly situated
"measurement while drilling" workers.  This case involves the
misclassification of the MWD position as exempt from overtime.  He
alleges that these workers regularly worked over 40 hours each
week but never received additional compensation for their overtime
hours.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LmbFoABW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713-523-0001
          Facsimile: 713-523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Sandoval, Fernando Felix, Mariana Vasquez, Valerie Calderon,
and Ariana Moreno, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC,
AT&T Services, Inc., and Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Case No.
RG16814598 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay wages earned and owed, in the form
of vested unused vacation time accrued by employees.

The Defendants are in the business of providing wireless voice and
data communications services and products to individual, business,
and government users in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 3
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

         - and -

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 7
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      Facsimile: (818) 975~5525
      E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


AUTO DREAMS: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to Dist. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Silvia Ramirez, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Auto Dreams USA, Credit
Acceptance Corporation, Benjamin Frenkel, and John Does 1-10, Case
No. OCN-L-16-00684, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Ocean County to the U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-02549-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

Auto Dreams USA operates a used car dealership company at 1182
Ocean Ave, Lakewood Township, NJ 08701.

Credit Acceptance Corporation operates an auto finance company
providing automobile loans and other related financial products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
      CARTON & RUDNICK
      788 Shrewsbury Ave, Suite 204
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
      Telephone: (732) 842-2070
      Facsimile: (732) 879-0213
      E-mail: jonr@cartonandrudnick.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew Muscato, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 10036-6522
      Telephone: (212) 735-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
      E-mail: amuscato@skadden.com


AVANGRID INC: Certification of Shareholder Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit have agreed to petition the court to (1)
certify the shareholder class, (2) approve the terms of the
settlement, (3) decide the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded
to plaintiffs' counsel, and (4) dismiss the consolidated action.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2015, a complaint was filed in
Connecticut state court against us, UIL, its board of directors
and others related to our acquisition of UIL.  The complaint is a
class action filed on behalf of all UIL shareowners.  The
complaint includes two counts:  (a) that the UIL directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to engage in an
appropriate process and failing to get a fair price; and (b) we
aided and abetted that breach by rendering "substantial
assistance" to the UIL directors.  Subsequently, four other
similar complaints were filed in Connecticut.   The cases have
been consolidated and transferred to the complex litigation court
and the time to respond to the complaint has been extended by
mutual agreement."

"On October 2, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of
Stamford/Norwalk, Complex Litigation Docket.  The consolidated
amended complaint generally alleges that UIL's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareowner value in
negotiating and approving the acquisition, and that we, UIL,
and/or Morgan Stanley aided and abetted the UIL Board's alleged
breaches.

"On November 30, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed
a binding Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, that sets forth the
terms on which the parties have agreed to settle the consolidated
action.  The settlement terms do not include any change in the
acquisition consideration but only additional disclosures relating
to information included in our Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC, which was declared effective on November 12,
2015.  Under the terms of the MOU, the defendants allowed the
plaintiffs to conduct some additional confirmatory discovery,
which was completed in February 2016, and agreed to negotiate in
good faith in an effort to agree upon reasonable plaintiffs'
counsel fees, but in any event to pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees
as determined by the court.

"The plaintiffs agreed to petition the court to (1) certify the
shareholder class, (2) approve the terms of the settlement, (3)
decide the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel, and (4) dismiss the consolidated action."

AVANGRID, Inc., or AVANGRID, formerly Iberdrola USA, Inc., is a
New York corporation headquartered in New Gloucester, Maine.  The
Company is a direct, majority owned subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.,
a corporation (sociedad anonima) organized under the laws of
Spain, one of the world's leading energy companies.


BANAMEX USA: "Blatt" Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 10, 2016, in the case
captioned Robert Blatt v. Banamex USA, Case No.: 1:15-cv-11876
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Robert W. Gettleman.

The minute entry states that the action is voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party to bear its own costs,
fees and expenses.  The scheduled status hearing is stricken and
the civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lSvJqdcC


BANK OF AMERICA: "Naranjo" Class Action Settlement Has Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHELLE NARANJO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-
02748-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the plaintiffs'
motions for attorney's fees and class representative award and for
final approval of their class action settlement.

Judge Koh approved these payments in accordance with the terms of
the settlement agreement:

          -- payment of class representative awards to Michelle
             Naranjo in the amount of $2,500.00 and Mathan Jayme
             in the amount of $2,500.00;

          -- payment to Michelle Naranjo in the amount of
             $2,500.00 and Mathan Jayme in the amount of
             $2,500.00 to settle their individual claims;

          -- payment of attorney's fees in the amount of
             $63,750.00 and costs in the amount of $4,470.87 to
             class counsel;

          -- payment of fees by the defendants to the claims
             administrator in the amount of $20,000.00; and

          -- payment of $46,875.00 to the California Labor
             Workforce & Development Agency as required under
             California law for settlement of penalties under the
             Private Attorney General Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's May 5, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/WS8a5y from Leagle.com.

Michelle Naranjo, Mathan Jayme, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group,
LLP, Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Hyun Legal & Larry W Lee, Diversity Law
Group, P.C..

Bank of America National Association, Defendant, represented by
John Arthur Van Hook -- jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods
LLP & Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP.


BEDNEST LTD: Recalls Bedside Sleepers Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bednest Ltd., of UK, announced a voluntary recall of about 500
Bedside Sleepers. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bedside sleepers fail to meet mandatory federal requirements
for these products, posing a fall hazard to babies.

This recall involves Bednest bedside infant sleepers manufactured
after July 2014. The date of manufacture is stamped underneath the
base of the bedside sleepers. The Bednest has beech wood ends with
white fabric sides over metal frames on a beech wood height-
adjustable stand.  The bedside sleeper measures about 34 inches
long by 18.5 inches wide. There are sewn-in Bednest labels on the
fabric side panel and on the upper surface of the mattress.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/AUVmci

The recalled products were manufactured in Romania and sold Online
at www.Bednest.com from March 2010 through December 2015 for
between $400 and $500 or if rented between $170 and $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bedside
sleeper while the sides are in the fully open position. Bednest is
providing a free repair kit that will permanently lock the side
rail into place. The firm is contacting all known consumers
directly. It is estimated that the repair kits will be sent out by
June 15, 2016.


BELTLINE ROAD: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Lender-Placed Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Thelwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Beltline Road Insurance Agency Inc.
f/k/a Ahmsi Insurance Agency, Inc., David M. Friedman, Homeward
Residential, Inc. f/k/a American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
QBE Financial Institution Risk Services Inc. f/k/a Sterling
National Corporation f/k/a ZC Sterling Corporation, QBE First
Insurance Agency, Inc. f/k/a ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc.,
QBE Insurance Corporation, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, WL
Ross & Co., LLC, WLR AHM Co-Invest, L.P., WLR/GS Master
Coinvestment, L.P., WLR Recovery Fund II, L.P., WLR Recovery Fund
IV, L.P., and WLR IV Parallel ESC, L.P., and ZCS Investments LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20942-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 15,
2016), seeks full disgorgement and restitution of the Defendants'
enrichment, benefits, and ill-gotten gains acquired as a result of
the alleged unlawful or wrongful conduct relating to lender-placed
insurance (LPI) pursuant to the Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly perpetrated a
scheme to overstate Homeward's lender-placed insurance (LPI)
costs, and, thereby, to overcharge borrowers for indemnification.

Beltline Road provides insurance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Herman J. Russomanno, Esq.
          Robert J. Borrello, Esq.
          Herman J. Russomanno III, Esq.
          RUSSOMANNO & BORRELLO, P.A.
          Museum Tower - Penthouse 2800
          150 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 373 2101
          Facsimile: (305) 373 2103
          E-mail: hrussomanno@russomanno.com
                  rborrello@russomanno.com
                  herman2@russomanno.com


BEST BM: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Earned Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best BM Food Corp., P.E.N.O Food
Corp., Francisco Diaz, and Mayer Hirsch, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01924-JMF (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016), seeks to remedy
violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law by Defendants that
have deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of
their lawfully earned wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have not paid the
Plaintiff the proper overtime compensation for all hours in excess
of 40 hours that he has been suffered or permitted to work each
workweek.

Best BM owns and operates Fine Fare/Pioneer supermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375
          E-mail: arodriguez@fslawfirm.com


BHH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in "Hart" Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOANNE HART, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BHH, LLC d/b/a BELL +
HOWELL, et al. Defendants, No. 15cv4804 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge William
H. Pauley, III granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Joanne Hart brought a putative consumer class action against BHH
LLC and Van Hauser LLC alleging claims under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, Californian Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
Unfair Competition Law, and California False Advertising Law, as
well as claims for breach of express warranty and unjust
enrichment.

Judge Pauley granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to Hart's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim and unjust
enrichment claim.  Hart's claims concerning Bell & Howell Solar
Animal Repellers were also dismissed for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of Judge Pauley's May 5, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/QZXow1 from Leagle.com.

Joanne Hart, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph Ignatius
Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

BHH LLC, Van Hauser LLC, Defendants, represented by Howard B.
Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd.,
pro hac vice & Scott Wing -- sw@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg &
Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


BHP BILLITON: Artificially Inflated ADRs, "Katz" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton
PLC, Jac Nasser, Andrew Mackenzie, Peter Beaven and Graham Kerr,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01920 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016),
seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendants, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly made false
and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the
market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the
price of the American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and operated as a
fraud or deceit on ADR purchasers by misrepresenting the value of
the Company's business and prospects. As Defendants'
misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became apparent to the
market, the price of the ADRs declined, as the artificial
inflation came out of the price. As a result of their ADR
purchases, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered
economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws.

BHP is a global resources company producing major commodities,
including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal, conventional
and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminum, manganese,
uranium, nickel and silver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc Gorrie, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 mgorrie@pomlaw.com
                 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


BIG LOTS: Securities Action Entering Early Stages of Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a securities class
action lawsuit is entering the early stages of discovery.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case
is entering the early stages of discovery."

Big Lots, Inc. is a unique, non-traditional, discount retailer
operating in the United States of America.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike O. Salazar, an Individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bloomin'
Brands, Inc.; OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC; Outback Steakhouse of
Florida, LLC; and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, f/k/a OS Restaurant
Services, Inc. (all doing business as Outback Steakhouse No.
4425), the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00581-RFB-NJK (S.D. Tex.,
March 15, 2016), seeks redress for gender discrimination created
by Defendants' fatally flawed implementation of a federal Consent
Decree entered in 2009 to create gender-neutral workplace in all
Outback Steakhouse restaurants across the country.

According to the complaint, rather than implement the Consent
Decree in a gender-neutral way, Defendants preferentially promoted
less qualified women. Defendants then retaliated against Salazar
by firing him when he complained about the discrimination. Salazar
is entitled to be reinstated and compensated for the denial of
promotion opportunities and the loss of his job.

Bloomin' Brands is a hospitality industry company that owns
several American casual dining restaurant chains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mynor "Eddie" Rodriguez, Esq.
          Michael Prejean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MYNOR E. RODRIGUEZ P.C.
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 968 9828
          Facsimile: (832) 553 7420
          E-mail: mrodriguez@rodrigueztrialfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Christie" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Elizabeth Christie v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International
GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067916-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 2,
2016), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Manlove" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Delle Manlove v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-
CV-16-6067915-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 2, 2015), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 River Edge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BRAND SCAFFOLD: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Leonard Thomas, an individually and on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Brand Scaffold Services, Inc.,
and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC619547 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Brand Scaffold Services, Inc. provides scaffolding services
primarily to refining, chemical, petrochemical, utility, and pulp
and paper industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq., Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq., Esq.
      KINGSLEY &KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

         - and -

      Walter L. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYERS LAWGROUP, PC
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com


BRIM'S FOOD: "Scott" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Scott, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Brim's Food, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
d/b/a Royal Castle, Josephine Malt Brimberry, individually, and
James N. Brimberry, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-
006439-CA-01(Fla. Cir. Ct., March 15, 2016), seeks to recover
damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been working for
Defendants as non-exempt employee since 2002. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate hours
worked in excess of 40 hours.

Brim's Food is a restaurant located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattomeys.com
                  apetisco@rgpattorncvs.com
                  rrcguciro@mpattorneys.com
                  pn@rgpattorneys.com


BROOKLYN EVENTS: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------
Steven Suchowieski, Rebecca-Emma Kaplan, Darrin Morda, Thomas
Beaulieu, James Barnes, Oliver Correa, Leslie Cuc, Ari Fraser,
Vanessa Lowe, Rosa Milazzo, Erika Mugglin, Catherine
Papamanousakis, Ryan Pilger, Sarah Pribis, Miles Ewell, and Luis
Cardozo, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Brooklyn Events
LLC, doing business as Verboten, Verboten Corporation, Jen
Schiffer, and John Perez, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01295
(E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016), seeks punitive damages in connection
with Defendants' discriminatory conduct and aiding and abetting
discriminatory conduct, and seeks to recover minimum wages and
premium overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaints, Defendants' female employees are
subjected to persistent sexual harassment at the hands of Ms.
Schiffer. By way of example only, Ms. Schiffer regularly and
openly discusses her sex life, including her favorite sexual
positions and sexual encounters with her husband John Perez and
other women. Ms. Schiffer has also attempted pressure female
employees into engaging in sexual conduct with her and other
males, including her boyfriend, Verboten employee Dylan Schwartz.
Defendants are also allegedly engaged in numerous unlawful wage
practices that have resulted in substantial damage to Plaintiffs
Plaintiff -- important info and story related to the case

The Defendants operate nightclub business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael John Willemin, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257 6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6845
          E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                  mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com


BRP US: Recalls Side-by-Side Off-Road Vehicles Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP U.S. Inc. of Sturtevant, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of
about 10,600 Side-by-side off-road vehicles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The steering coupling can strip on the rack and pinion assembly
and result in a loss of steering control and crash hazard.

This recall involves model year 2013 Can-Am Commander side-by-side
vehicles equipped with Dynamic Power Steering (DPS). The vehicles
came in various colors. The model name and Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) is on a label under the glove box. To find a list of
VINs for recalled vehicles, go to www.can-am.brp.com and click on
"Owner Center" and then "Recall Information." Recalled models
include:

COMMANDER DPS 1000EFI
COMMANDER DPS 800REFI
COMMANDER LTD 1000EFI
COMMANDER X 1000EFI
COMMANDER XT 1000EFI
COMMANDER XT XT 800REFI

The firm has received 29 incident reports, including two reports
of minor injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/oCV9Pt

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Can-
Am dealers nationwide from April 2012 through April 2016 for
between $12,600 and $20,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact BRP Can-Am side-by-side dealer to schedule an appointment
for a vehicle inspection and free repair. The free repair will be
available on June 30, 2016. In the meantime, consumers who must
use their vehicles can contact BRP Can-Am side-by-side dealer and
make an appointment to have their vehicles verified. This free
verification is a temporary action to allow limited use of the
vehicles until the availability of the free repair. BRP is
notifying registered consumers directly about this recall.


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Bid for Class Cert. of "Baha" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, v. BUCKS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNPUBLISH
LLC, Defendants. UNPUBLISH LLC Cross Defendant. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Cross Claimant v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/
RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1-6, BUCKS
COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, FRANK NOONAN and WILLIAM
F. PLANTIER Cross Defendants,  Civil Action No. 12-6867 (E.D.
Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted Daryoush Taha's motion for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b).

Taha sought to be the lead plaintiff in a class action suit
brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record
Information Act (CHRIA).  Taha alleged that Bucks County and Bucks
County Correctional Facility published the arrest records of
thousands of individuals on a public electronic search tool in
violation of the anti-dissemination provisions of CHRIA.  Summary
judgment has already been granted in Taha's favor as to the county
defendants' liability.  Taha moved for class certification.

Judge Beetlestone found that Taha has satisfied the demands of
Rule 23(a) in demonstrating numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy.  The judge also found that Taha has met the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) by demonstrating that questions
common to the class predominate over those affecting individual
members and that a class action suit is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

A full-text copy of Judge Beetlestone's May 5, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/Gs37Mh from Leagle.com.

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, represented by ALAN E. DENENBERG,
ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN
SWIFT & GRAF PC & SCOTT A. GEORGE -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com --
SEEGER WEISS.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants, represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK --
chernakf@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
LLP, BURT M. RUBLIN -- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP & ERIN K. CLARKE --
clarkee@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP.

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, Cross Claimant, represented by KATHRYN A. DUX -
- duxk@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, WILLIAM F.
PLAINTIER, Cross Defendants, represented by ERIN K. CLARKE,
Ballard Spahr LLP.

FRANK NOONAN, Cross Defendant, represented by BARRY N. KRAMER, PA
OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL.


C&J ENERGY: Conditional Class Cert. of "Esparza" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David A. Ezra affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order granting
conditional class certification in the case captioned JACOB
ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and C&J SPEC-
RENT SERVICES, INC. Defendants, No. 5:15-CV-850-DAE (W.D. Tex.).

C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J Spec-Rent Services, Inc. filed a
motion to reconsider Magistrate Judge Henry Bemporad's April 1,
2016 decision granting conditional class certification, and
authorizing that notice be sent to "all current and former
wireline engineers . . . paid on a salaried basis during the last
three years."

Denying the defendants' motion, Judge Ezra held that the
defendants are obligated to provide the plaintiff with contact
information for all wireline engineers in accordance with the
instructions set forth in Judge Bemporad's order.

The temporary stay imposed during the pendency of the court's
determination of the defendants' motion was also lifted.

A full-text copy of Judge Ezra's May 2, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/FNmscs from Leagle.com.

The plaintiff, Jacob Esparza, was employed at C&J as part of a
wireline crew at well sites in Texas and New Mexico between April
2010 and May 2014.  He alleged that he was regularly scheduled to
work in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not paid overtime
wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA").  On September 30, 2015,
Esparza filed suit against C&J under the FLSA and NMMWA on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated employees to recover
unpaid overtime compensation.  On January 14, 2016, Esparza
amended his complaint to add Spec-Rent as a defendant.

Jacob Esparza, Jess Peper, Kelly B. Bowman, John W. Soules, III,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap, Fibich, Leebron,
Copeland, Briggs & Josephson, Jessica Marie Bresler, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs & Josephson, Lindsay R. Itkin, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs & Josephson, Richard J. Burch, Bruckner
Burch PLLC & Michael A. Josephson, Fibich, Leebron, Copeland,
Briggs & Josephson.

C&J Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean Michael
Becker -- sbecker@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins & Christie M.
Alcala -- calcala@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P..


CALERES INC: Settlement Payments Made in 2015 Fourth Quarter
------------------------------------------------------------
Caleres, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that "During 2014, we signed a
settlement agreement to resolve a putative class action lawsuit
involving wage and hour claims in California for an amount not to
exceed $1.5 million. In 2015, the court granted final approval of
the settlement, pursuant to which the Company was required to pay
$1.0 million in attorneys' fees, costs of administering the
settlement and settlement payments to class members who submitted
claims. All payments required under the settlement agreement were
made in the fourth quarter of 2015 and this matter is fully
resolved."

Caleres, Inc., originally founded as Brown Shoe Company, Inc. in
1878 and incorporated in 1913, is a global footwear retailer and
wholesaler with annual net sales of $2.6 billion.


CARIBOU COFFEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farnham" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Farnham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Caribou Coffee Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00295 (W.D. Wis., May 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Caribou Coffee Company is a specialty coffee and espresso
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Hedin, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
      1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Parties Reached Mediated Cash Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2016, that on March
28, 2016, the parties to the consolidated class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and
former directors and executive officers, significant stockholders
and underwriters of its initial public offering reached a mutually
acceptable resolution by way of a mediated cash settlement. The
aggregate amount of the settlement under the agreement in
principle is $9.5 million. Of the total cash to be provided in the
settlement, the agreement in principle calls for the Company to
contribute $800,000, with the remainder to be covered by the
Company's D&O insurance.  In that regard, the Company intends to
pay the balance of its self-insured retention, or deductible
portion under its insurance policy, during the quarter ended June
30, 2016. The estimated amount remaining to be paid on the self-
insured retention is approximately $1.9 million. While the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the litigation, the
Company is satisfied with this resolution given the risks and
expenses associated with further litigation. The settlement is
subject to final documentation and court approval.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Ford" Settlement Administration Dates Changed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANCHESCA FORD, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01420-
RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg approved a modified schedule
for settlement administration based on the parties' stipulation.

The modified schedule is as follows:

          May 13, 2016 -- Last day for the Settlement
                          Administrator to mail the Class Notice
                          to all Class Members.

          June 28, 2016 -- Last day for Plaintiff to file the
                           Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
                           a Class Representative Enhancement
                           Payment.

          July 12, 2016 -- Last day for Class Members to submit
                           Requests for Exclusion or objections
                           to the Settlement.

          July 19, 2016 -- Last day for Plaintiff to file the
                           Motion for Final Approval of Class
                           Action Settlement.

          August 11, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. -- Hearing on Motion for
                           Final Approval of Class Action
                           Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
                           Fees, Costs, and a Class
                           Representative Enhancement Payment.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's May 5, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/Ip8qg6 from Leagle.com.

Francesca Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Ward Kehr --
katherine.kehr@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Matthew
Thomas Theriault -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr. --
robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan
Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Liana Carol Carter -- liana.carter@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC & Stan Karas -- stan.karas@capstonelawyers.com
-- Capstone Law APC.

CEC Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kenneth Petersen -- cpetersen@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer Feld, Julia Ingrid DeBeers, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and
Feld, Liz Kathryn Bertko -- lbertko@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Donna Marie Mezias --
dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Richard Sinohui, Objector, represented by Trush Merrick James,
Trush Law Office, APC.


CHEMOIL ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Valdez and Rafael Valdez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chemoil Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:16-
cv-00419 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chemoil Energy, Inc. is one of the world's leading retail energy
companies in sea and land sectors, delivering energy to an
extensive network of international clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST  LAZARZ  SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Illinois Rules on "Matthews" Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed in part and reversed in
part the appellate court's ruling in the appealed case captioned
JERRY MATTHEWS et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CHICAGO
TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al. (Retirement Plan for Chicago Transit
Authority Employees et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees, Nos.
117638, 117713, 117728 cons. (Ill.).

At issue in the appeal is the enforceability of the plaintiffs'
rights to retiree health care benefits as set forth in the 2004
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Chicago Transit
Authority (CTA) and Amalgamated Transit Union Locals 241 and 308
(collectively, the Transit Unions), the labor unions that
represented CTA's bus and rail employees for purposes of
collective bargaining.  After the 2004 CBA expired, the retiree
health care benefits were the subject of an interest arbitration
award.  That award, which modified the retiree health care
benefits, was accepted by the CTA and the Transit Unions.  The
plaintiffs brought a putative class action to challenge the
implementation of that award.

The individual plaintiffs are five current and retired employees
of the CTA who began working for the CTA prior to 2001.  In their
complaint, they sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and
two putative classes.  Plaintiff Jerry Williams retired in 2006
and sought to represent a class of retirees (Class I) who were
hired before September 5, 2001, and retired before January 1,
2007.  The remaining plaintiffs sought to represent a class of CTA
employees and retirees (Class II) who were hired before September
5, 2001, and retired after January 1, 2007, or remain current
employees of the CTA.

The circuit court of Cook County ruled that the retired CTA
employees had standing to challenge the modifications to their
retiree health care benefits, but the current CTA employees lacked
standing to assert that challenge.  On the merits, the circuit
court dismissed the complaint in its entirety for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The plaintiffs appealed, and the appellate court affirmed in part
and reversed in part.  The appellate court upheld the circuit
court's ruling that the current CTA employees lacked standing but
held that the CTA retirees had a vested right to receive the
retiree health care benefits that were provided in the prior CBA
and had stated a claim for breach of that contract.  The appellate
court also held that the retired CTA employees were entitled to
pursue their claims for promissory estoppel against the CTA.

The defendants further appealed, seeking reversal of the lower
courts' rulings with respect to the standing of the CTA retirees
and the sufficiency of their claims for breach of contract and
promissory estoppel.  The plaintiffs cross-appealed, arguing that
the lower courts erred in ruling that the current employees lack
standing to challenge the health care modifications.

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed that portion of the
appellate court's judgment which upheld the dismissal of all
claims by the Class II plaintiffs.  The Court also affirmed that
portion of the judgment holding that the Class I plaintiffs stated
a cause of action for breach of contract against the Retirement
Plan, the Retirement Plan Board, the Health Trust, and the Health
Trust Board (collectively, the Plan and Trust defendants).  The
Court further affirmed that portion of the judgment which held
that the Class I plaintiffs stated a cause of action for
declaratory judgment against the Plan and Trust defendants.  The
Court also affirmed that portion of the judgment which reversed
the dismissal of the Class I plaintiffs' claim for violation of
article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution against the
Plan and Trust defendants.  Finally, the Court reversed that
portion of the appellate court's judgment holding that the Class I
plaintiffs stated a claim for promissory estoppel against the CTA.
Accordingly, the Court remanded the cause to the appellate court,
with directions to remand to the circuit court for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/qxESmN from Leagle.com.


CHINA CAFETERIA: Faces Suit in Ga. for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
ERIBERTO BOJORQUEZ-GUTIERREZ, and DIANA BOJORQUEZ, Plaintiff, vs.
CHINA CAFETERIA FOOD GROUP, LLC, MTFG CHINA I, LLC, and MICHAEL
TIEN, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-01439-CAP (N.D. Ga., May 2, 2016),
seeks payment for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

China Cafeteria Food Group LLC is in the Chinese Restaurant
business.

Defendant Tien is the sole member manager of Defendant China
Cafeteria Food Group, LLC and Defendant MTFG China I, LLC.
Defendant Tien at all relevant times was a manager with operation
control of the Defendants cafeterias.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dawson Morton, Esq.
     DAWSON MORTON, LLC
     104 Cambridge Ave
     Decatur, GA 30030
     Phone: (404) 590-1295
     Fax: (404) 377-7637


CHRYSLER: Recalls 300 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Powertrain
Units affected: 55144
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016184TC
ID number: 2016184
Manufacturer recall number: S27

On certain vehicles, the gear shift position indicators and
warnings may not be sufficient to deter drivers from exiting the
vehicle when the transmission is inadvertently left in a gear
other than "Park". If this occurs and the driver exits the vehicle
with the engine running and the parking brake has not been set,
unintended vehicle movement can result, increasing the risk of
injury and/or a crash. Correction: Dealers will update vehicle
software to include additional features to protect against driver
error.

  Make       Model    Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----    ----------------------
  CHRYSLER   300      2012


CITY DEE: "Zacarias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Eulalio Zacarias and John Doe, the Plaintiff, v. City Dee Designs
L.L.C. and Danilo Uckar, the Defendants, Case No. 702896/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not providing a proper
wage statement to Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees, in
violation of the New York Labor Law. In fact, Plaintiffs did not
receive any wage statements during their period of employment with
Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in carpentry and design business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: info@leelitigation.com


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Suit Remanded to San Mateo
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the
case captioned ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL #357 PENSION AND HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUSTS, Plaintiff, v. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00933-EMC (N.D. Cal.), remanding the
case to the San Mateo Superior Court.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 5, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/iYrUH2 from Leagle.com.

The securities class action was filed by the Electrical Workers
Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts against Clovis
Oncology, Inc., executives Patrick J. Mahaffy, Erle T. Mast, M.
James Barrett, Brian G. Atwood, James C. Blair, Paul Klingenstein,
Edward J. McKinley, Scott D. Sandell, Forest Baskett, and venture
capital firms NEA 13 GP, Ltd., Aberdare Ventures IV, L.P., and
underwriters J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Mizuho
Securities USAS Inc. alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension And Health & Welfare Trusts,
Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension And Health & Welfare Trusts,
On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & James Ian Jaconette --
jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Clovis Oncology, Inc., Patrick J. Mahaffy, Erle T Mast, M. James
Barrett, Brian G. Atwood, James C Blair, Paul Klingenstein, Edward
J McKinley, Defendant, represented by Aaron Christopher Humes --
ahumes@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, P.C., Tariq
Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP,
pro hac vice, Todd G. Cosenza -- tconsenza@willkie.com -- Willkie
Farr and Gallagher LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Dean Cording --
ccording@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP, pro hac
vice & John Francis Cannon -- jcannon@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca
et al.

Scott D. Sandell, Forest Baskett, NEA Partners 13, L.P., NEA 13
GP, LTD, Aberdare Ventures IV, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Roger Allan Lane -- rlane@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, pro
hac vice & Thomas Stedman Brown -- tsbrown@foley.com -- Foley
Lardner.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Mizuho Securities USA
Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Andrew Sacks --
sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Alexa Megan
Lawson-Remer -- lawsonr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
& Laura Kabler Oswell -- oswell@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.


COLLECTIONS BUREAU: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned MALIK BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTIONS BUREAU OF
AMERICA, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00720-RS (N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's May 2, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/HptsAN from Leagle.com.

Malik Brown filed the putative class action, complaining that the
Collections Bureau of America, Ltd. has violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Brown avered that beginning
around August of 2013, the defendant "or its agents" called his
cellular telephone "at least 16 times using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice without his
prior express written consent."

Malik Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A. & Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., pro hac vice.

Collections Bureau of America, LTD, Defendant, represented by Gabe
Peterson Wright -- gwright@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP.


CONN'S INC: Hearing on Securities Action Postponed Sine Die
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, that for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that the briefing on the
defendant's motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action
Litigation has been fully briefed and the Court held a hearing on
defendants' motion on March 25, 2016. That hearing was not
concluded and the completion of that hearing was postponed until a
future date.

The Company said, "We and two of our current and former executive
officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"),
In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548
(the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The Consolidated
Securities Action started as three separate purported securities
class action lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas that were consolidated into the Consolidated Securities
Action on June 3, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to
certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or
sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December
9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought."

"On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs
to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling,
and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the
defendant's motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held
a hearing on defendants' motion on March 25, 2016. That hearing
was not concluded and the completion of that hearing was postponed
until a future date."

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these
claims.

Conn's is a specialty retailer that offers a broad selection of
quality, branded durable consumer goods and related services in
addition to a proprietary credit solution for its core credit
constrained consumers.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Rules on "Maple" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed in part
and vacated in part the district court's dismissal of Harold
Maple's complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation and Niagara
Bottling LLC.

Maple's putative class-action complaint alleged deceptive labeling
in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act resulting
from his purchase of "VitaRain Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced
Water Beverage."

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court correctly held
that the complaint failed to state a claim and that dismissal
without leave to amend was proper.  The appellate court, however,
found that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing
the action without prejudice.  The case was remanded with
instructions to re-enter judgment "with prejudice."

The case is HAROLD MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; NIAGARA BOTTLING LLC, a
California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. HAROLD
MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and NIAGARA BOTTLING
LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. HAROLD
MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, Defendants, and NIAGARA BOTTLING LLC, a
California limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant, Nos.
13-36089, 14-35038, 14-35059 (9th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 9, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/on1754 from Leagle.com.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Feeney" Sues Over Premium Cable Tie-up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean P. Feeney and Louis W. Grande Plaintiffs, v. Cox
Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00440-C (D.
R.I., April 28, 2016), seeks enjoinment, award of all statutory
damages, compensatory and other damages, reasonable attorney fees
and costs and any other relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Cox tied up Premium Cable services to the rental of a set-top box,
thus constraining competition in the market for the sale or lease
of set-top boxes and to charge supra-competitive profits by
overcharging for its set-top boxes.

Feeney and Grande are subscribed to Cox Premium Cable and rented
one or more set-top boxes from the Defendant.

Cox Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Cox provides
multi-channel video programming distribution through a cable
network and also leases set-top boxes to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
      395 Smith Street
      Providence, RI 02908
      Telephone: (401) 864-5877
      Email: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

             - and -

      Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
      Jason Kim, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
             jkim@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      Arizona, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Fax: (504) 524-5763
      Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.stamant@kanner-law.com

             - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
      WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
      380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 447-7070
      Fax: (212) 447-7077
      Email: jwhatley@wdklaw.com


CREDIT ONE: Minor "AD" Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled A.D., by and through her
guardian ad litem Judith Serrano, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-
cv-10106 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     All persons in the United States who, within four years of
     the filing of this action both (1) received a non-emergency
     call by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Defendant
     Credit One, where the call was placed to a cellular
     telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing
     system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (2) at the
     time the call was placed Defendant Credit One did not have
     the person's express prior consent to receive the call
     because either (a) the person did not provide the cellular
     telephone number during the transaction that resulted in the
     debt owed or (b) the person revoked consent during a
     telephone call with Defendant Credit One or its vendors or
     sent Defendant a written request to stop calling.

Plaintiff A.D., then age 15, received 39 auto-dialed calls on her
cell phone placed by Credit One and by a vendor retained by Credit
One, to collect money for a delinquent credit card account owed by
the Plaintiff's mother, Judith Serrano.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant never had consent to call A.D., and her mother
never provided Alexa's number to the Defendant (or anyone else
regarding her credit card account) at any time.  Thus Plaintiff,
by and through her guardian ad litem Judith
Serrano, brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act to remedy harassing debt collection calls by the Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VIfEZOE3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Del Mar, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com

               - and -

          Roberto Robledo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 500-6683
          Facsimile: (619) 810-2980
          E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com


CYBEX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Free Weight Benches
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cybex International, Inc. of Medway, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of about 400 Decline free weight benches. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The frame on the bench can collapse forward onto the user, posing
an impact injury hazard.

This recall involves the Olympic Decline free weight bench with
model numbers 16060, 16061, 16062 and 16063. The bench consists of
a steel frame with an upholstered pad on which the user rests
his/her back, and a rack on which the user can engage a 7-foot bar
with its weight plates when the user completes the exercise
routine. On all of these models the upholstered pad is configured
at a 15 degree angle so that, in use, the user's back and
shoulders are lower than the user's thighs and knees. A decal
bearing the unit's model and serial number is affixed to the tube
near where the user's feet are placed when using the unit. The
recalled benches have serial numbers C1208 through K0915, which
represent manufacture dates of December 2008 through September
2015. "Cybex" is printed on the benches.

The firm received 10 reports of frames breaking near the weld
point. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/iiANXG

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Cybex
direct sales force or its distributors directly to gyms nationwide
from December 2008 through September 2015 for about $1,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled benches and
contact Cybex to arrange to return the weight bench and for a free
replacement unit. Cybex is directly contacting owners of the
recalled benches.


DAYBREAK VENTURE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ross" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Ross, Stephanie Wagner, Lisa Traylor, Crystal Kilwili,
Denise Birch, and Tara Garrett v. Daybreak Venture L.L.C. and
Frankston Healthcare Center, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-00479-JRG
(E.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants to
recover wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing home located at 500 S.
Taylor, Suite 1100, LB 219, Amarillo, Texas 79101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      BOB WHITEHURST, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 593-5588
      Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
      E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


DELTA OUTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt,"Hamra" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Yaffa Hamra, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Delta Outsource Group, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02259
(E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Delta Outsource Group, Inc. specializes in post charge-off
financial services products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Anderson" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOANNE ANDERSON, an individual in her own
capacity and as heir to the Estate of ELLIOT BERD, now deceased;
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AMERICAS, Defendant, and AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC and
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-55822 (9th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the negligence-based claims
against Aurora Loan Services, LLC, as well as the claim that
Nationstar Loan Services, LLC violated California's Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 4, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/lguPZQ from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was filed by a group of financially
distressed home mortgagors who accused mortgage servicers Aurora
Loan Services, LLC and Nationstar Loan Services, LLC of a range of
unlawful behaviors related to offering loan modifications.


DIGITEK COMPUTER: Joint Bid to Notify "Viciedo" Class Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Graham granted, pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the Labor Code, a joint motion of the parties for an order
authorizing notice to similarly situated persons in the lawsuit
captioned Louis Viciedo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Digitek Computer Products, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-03073-JLG-NMK (S.D. Ohio).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8pf2dLFi


EDAP TMS S.A.: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------
Edap TMS S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff has not
appealed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

On August 4, 2014, Mark Eaton filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting that the Company, Marc
Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer (our former Chief Financial Officer)
violated federal securities laws Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's business operations and prospects particularly
concerning the Company's Ablatherm-HIFU PMA file under review by
the FDA that caused the price of the Company's American Depository
Receipts to be artificially inflated during the period from
February 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014. On August 6, 2014, Ronnie
Haddad filed a second purported class action lawsuit, also in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, asserting similar claims.

On October 24, 2014, the related cases were consolidated by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that no longer included Mr. Soyer. The amended complaint
alleges that the Company and Mr. Oczachowski breached their
obligations under the Exchange Act in various ways, including by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose allegedly material
information about the safety and efficacy of treatment with
Ablatherm-HIFU, and the Company's interactions with the FDA. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, and fees,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company said, "On December 31, 2014, we accrued $250,000
(EUR206,000) as legal costs to be incurred by the Company in
relation to this litigation."

On February 20, 2015, the defendants, including the Company, filed
a motion to dismiss the action.

"On September 14, 2015, we received a confirmation of the
dismissal of our class action. On November 11, 2015, we announced
the appeals period had concluded with no notice of appeal had been
filed by the plaintiffs. The remaining accrued amount was reversed
as of December 31, 2015," the Company said.


ELOCAL USA: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Phone Call Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Chaides, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, eLocal USA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case
No. BC613857 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2016), seeks relief to
remedy Defendants' improper recording of telephonic
communications, in violation of the Penal Code and Unfair
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have a standard,
uniform practice of recording incoming telephone calls without
obtaining the callers' knowledge, consent and/or permission. In so
doing, they are violating California state law with impunity.

Elocal USA is an advertising promotional products and service
located in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818)991 8080
          Facsimile: (818)991 8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzfnan.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com


EMSP LLC: Certification of Independent Contractors Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JESSICA MARILU ROSALEZ FUNEZ,
SULMA HERNANDEZ, CANDY MELISSA ZAMORA, JULIA S. CARBALLO, DIANNA
MEJIA, DILCIA NUNEZ, KARLINA MOLINA, LYDIA VEGA, and REYNA
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. E.M.S.P., LLC, EDWIN A. MIRANDA, and * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SADIA ESTHER PALACIO, Case No. 2:16-cv-01922-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.),
ask the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying the
case as a Collective Action; and (2) authorizing, under Court
supervision, the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
Consent form pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The putative class to which the Plaintiffs seek to facilitate
notice consists of all individuals, who (a) worked for E.M.S.P.,
LLC at any time during the past three years; and (b) were
classified as independent contractors instead of employees.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to:

   -- order E.M.S.P, LLC to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a
      computer-readable data file containing all Putative Class
      Members' names, last-known mailing addresses, e-mail
      addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment/work
      within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order;

   -- authorize a notice period allowing Putative Class Members
      90 days from the date the Notice is sent out to submit
      their Consents to join with the Plaintiffs' counsel;

   -- authorize the use of online, electronic signature opt-in
      forms; and

   -- enter an order prohibiting retaliation by E.M.S.P. or its
      managers against individuals, who opt-in to the lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8trukJy8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T. Tusa, Jr., Esq.
          SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC
          4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 727-7501
          Facsimile: (985) 727-7505
          E-mail: mtusa@sutton-alker.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 908-1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Rent Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Franklin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Equity Residential Management, LLC, in its
capacity as agent for Equity Residential, and Equity Residential,
the Defendants, Case No. 651360/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 15,
2016), seeks to recover money damages as a result of Defendants'
rent overcharges.

According to the complaint, the Defendants illegally charged the
Plaintiff market-rate rents (i.e., rents in excess of the legal
rent stabilized levels) for Plaintiff's dwelling units in
violation of New York Real Property Tax Law

Equity Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment
trust based in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil B. Solomon, Esq.
          Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
          Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison A venue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448 1100
          E-mail: nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com
          bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
          wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Collection of Cancer Patients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Smith; Jane Doe I; and Jane Doe II, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Facebook, Inc.; American Cancer Society, Inc.; American Society of
Clinical Oncology, Inc.; Melanoma Research Foundation; Adventist
Health System; BJC Healthcare; Cleveland Clinic; and
University Of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01282 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 2016), seeks damages
and injunctive relief for privacy violations by Facebook on the
websites Cancer.org, Cancer.net, Melanoma.org, ShawneeMission.org,
BarnesJewish.org, ClevelandClinic.org, MDAnderson.org, and other
health care and hospital websites.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' cancer and other sensitive
health-related Internet communications with these medical websites
were divulged to Facebook and acquired by Facebook along with the
Plaintiffs' personally-identifiable information. In addition,
Facebook acquired, tracked, and used the Plaintiffs' sensitive
medical information collected through medical websites and the
Facebook website for purposes of direct marketing.

Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables
people to connect, share, discover, and communicate each other on
mobile devices and personal computers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854 4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854 0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel-law.com
                  koncius@kiesel-law.com
                  ramirez@kiesel-law.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
          Chris Dandurand, Esq.
          THE GORNY LAW FIRM, LC
          2 Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard, Suite 410
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756 5056
          Facsimile: (816) 756 5067
          E-mail: steve@gornylawfirm.com
                  chris@gornylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jay Barnes, Esq.
          Rod Chapel, Esq.
          BARNES & ASSOCIATES
          219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 634 8884
          Facsimile: (573) 635 6291
          E-mail: jaybarnes5@zoho.com
                  rod.chapel@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Delaware Over Reclassification of Share
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ramirez Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl
Sandberg, Marc Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan Desmond-
Hellmann, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter A. Thiel, and Facebook,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 12283-CB (Del. Chancery Ct., April
29, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with
reclassification of the Company's shares, and in the event that
the reclassification is consummated, Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages from the Director Defendants for their breaches of
fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, Facebook's dual class stock structure
had its intended effect and solidified management and permitted
Zuckerberg to continue to dominate Facebook, allowing him the
ability to continue to appoint all directors unilaterally and
insulate himself from dissenting views. At the time of the IPO,
however, there was certainly no plan announced to perpetuate
Zuckerberg's domination if he lost such dominance due to share
sales or otherwise. Nor was there a plan announced to allow
Zuckerberg to remain in control through a reclassification that
would effectively turn half the publicly-traded Class A shares
into non-voting shares, under a plan in which all detriments would
be borne by the Class A shareholders, and all benefits would be
enjoyed by Zuckerberg.

Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables
people to connect, share, discover, and communicate each other on
mobile devices and personal computers worldwide. Mark Zuckerberg
is the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors at Facebook. Zuckerberg founded Facebook in 2004 while
studying computer science at Harvard University. He is the largest
and controlling shareholder of Facebook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West St., 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302 984 3800
          Facsimile: 302 984 3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          William P. Butterfield, Esq.
          Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540 7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540 7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeld.com
                  tkearns@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
          208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212 685 0969
          Facsimile: 212 685 2306
          E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Ill. Law Applies to Privacy Litigation, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato denied Facebook, Inc.'s motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment in the case captioned IN RE FACEBOOK
BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 15-cv-03747-JD
(N.D. Cal.).

In the putative class action under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), the named plaintiffs alleged
that defendant Facebook unlawfully collected and stored biometric
data derived from their faces.  Although the case was brought by
Illinois residents under Illinois law, it is before the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
because the parties agreed to transfer it from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Facebook argued that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
under BIPA and that a California choice-of-law provision in its
user agreement precludes suing on an Illinois statute.  The
plaintiffs said the BIPA allegations do state a claim and that
they never agreed to a choice of California law.  Even if they
had, plaintiffs contended Illinois law applies under traditional
choice-of-law rules.

After briefing and an evidentiary hearing on disputed fact issues
underlying choice of law, Judge Donato found that Illinois law
applies and that the plaintiffs have stated a claim under BIPA.

A full-text copy of Judge Donato's May 5, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/a4wpZA from Leagle.com.

Nimesh Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Jeffrey Geller --
pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Alexander Nguyen, Edelson P.C., Frank Anthony Richter --
frichter@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Mark Dearman
-- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com --
Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson --
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & James E Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

ADAM PEZEN, Plaintiff, represented by Corban S Rhodes --
crhodes@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joel H.
Bernstein -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro
hac vice, Ross M Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
Llp, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Alexander Nguyen, Edelson P.C. & Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson
PC, pro hac vice.

Carlo Licata, Plaintiff, represented by Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Alexander Nguyen,
Edelson P.C., pro hac vice, J. Dominick Larry --
nlarry@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson
PC, pro hac vice.

Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Connelly --
vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Archis A. Parasharami
-- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice,
John Nadolenco -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Lauren R Goldman -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown Llp,
pro hac vice & Matthew David Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice.

Frederick William Gullen, Interested Party, represented by Frank S
Hedin -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez, LLP.


FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: "Rajagopalan" Settlement Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle granted a joint motion filed on April 7,
2016, by settlement class representatives and Platte River
Insurance Company for preliminary approval of their class action
settlement.

The parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release, dated March 23, 2016 to settle the case captioned AMRISH
RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS,
DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY
JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE, WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, ALEX
CASIANO, DECEMBER GUZZO, BEN PARKER, CHERYL ANDERSON, CARMEN
ALFONSO, BETH JUNGEN, TANYA GWATHNEY, KEVIN DELOACH, SCOTT SNOEK,
KELLY ENDERS, THOMAS LUDWICK, DONALD BOGAN, BILL KRUSE, JOYCE
DRUMMOND, TAMARA COOPER, DEBRA MILLER, GEORGE LAWRENCE, CYNTHIA
OXENDINE, MARTIN ANDERSON, ANGELA ROSS, ANDREA TOPPS, DEBRA
FINAZZO, SHARRON BLACK, SYLVIA HADCOCK, AUDRIE LAWRENCE (POOLE),
ADAM WARD, ISHULA MCCONNELL, ERICA CHASE, STEPHEN YOUNKINS, DAN
WEDDLE, STILLMAN PARKER, TINA ROBERTS-ASHBY, BRANDON ASHBY,
VALERIE NEWSOME, and RUSSEL TANNER, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT
COMPANY OF MARYLAND and PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, as
Sureties for Meracord LLC, Defendants, No. 3:16-cv-05147-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), as well as the action captioned Cheeks v. Fidelity and
Deposit Company of Maryland and Platte River Ins. Co., as sureties
for Meracord LLC, No. 4:13-cv-01854-DR (N.D. Cal. Filed April 23,
2013).

Judge Settle preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only
the following settlement class:

     "all persons who had an account at Meracord from which
     Meracord deducted any fees related to debt settlement
     services (including mortgage assistance relief services)
     and who, while residing in a Platte River State, made
     payments to such account within the Bond Period2 of their
     state of residence."

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC were
appointed as class counsel.  Garden City Group, LLC was appointed
as administrator.

A full-text copy of Judge Settle's May 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/MWwnpy from Leagle.com.

Amrish Rajagopalan, Marie Johnson-Peredo, Robert Hewson, Donte
Cheeks, Deborah Horton, Richard Pierce, Erma Sue Clyatt, Robert
Joyce, Amy Joyce, Arthur Fuller, Dawn Meade, Wahab Ekunsumi, Karen
Hea, Alex Casiano, December Guzzo, Ben Parker, Cheryl Anderson,
Carmen Alfonso, Beth Jungen, Tanya Gwathney, Kevin Deloach, Scott
Snoek, Kelly Enders, Thomas Ludwick, Donald Bogan, Bill Kruse,
Joyce Drummond, Tamara Cooper, Debra Miller, George Lawrence,
Cynthia Oxendine, Martin Anderson, Angela Ross, Andrea Topps,
Debra Finazzo, Sharron Black, Sylvia Hadcock, Audrie Lawrence,
Adam Ward, Ishula McConnell, Erica Chase, Stephen Younkins, Dan
Weddle, Stillman Parker, Tina Roberts-Ashby, Brandon Ashby,
Valerie Newsome, Russel Tanner, Plaintiffs, represented by Celeste
H. G. Boyd -- cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com -- THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M Paynter --
stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac
vice & Thomas E Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP.

Platte River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
A Constine -- jonathan.constine@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice & Scott M Stickney -- stickney@wscd.com
-- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.


FIRST NBC BANK: "Kinzler" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Eric R. Kinzler, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First NBC Bank Holding Company,
Ashton J. Ryan, Jr. and Mary Beth Verdigets, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-04243 (E.D. La., May 5, 2016) seeks damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and attorney fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that First NBC common stock were traded at
artificially inflated prices and went down 56% from its high,
erasing $454 million in market capitalization after corrective
disclosures of material facts, omissions and misrepresentations
were made public.

First NBC is a bank holding company. The Company offers a range of
financial services through its wholly owned banking subsidiary,
First NBC Bank. It serves customers located in the Central
Business District of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast
with focus on commercial real estate and commercial lending.
Ashton J. Ryan, Jr. was First NBC Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer while Mary Beth Verdigets was Chief
Financial Officer and Executive Vice President.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
      P.O. Box 904
      15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057
      Tel: 985/783-6789
      Fax: 985/783-1333
      Email: andrew@lemonlawfirm.com

           - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: 631/367-7100
      Fax: 631/367-1173

           - and -

      FRANK J. JOHNSON, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: 619/230-0063
      Fax: 619/255-1856

           - and -

       Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
       JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
       40 Powder Springs Street
       Marietta, GA 30064
       Tel: 770/200-3104
       Fax: 770/200-3101


FIRST STUDENT: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Jackson, Johnnie Thomas, Kimberly Shakir, Shannon Frost,
Stephanie Campbell, Dardanius Smith,Tracy Joyce, Tamara Frazier,
April McClendon, Barbara Williams, Darryl Anderson, Vera Jean
Hurd, Ruth Pearson, Toni Owens, Tim Owens, Natalie Adams, Joseph
Veloz, Catarra Viltz,Timothy McDonald, Ahisha Steward, Roberta
Guidier, Denise Cruz, Tessica Howell, Ireti Sims, Jacky Paul, Mary
McHale, Arthur Gartrell, Joyce Creighton, Sheila Brown, Lovellia
Simmons, Karen Kelly, Alicia King, Gregory Salomon, Kiera
Matthews, Desiree Harrell, Tracy Jones, Yvoime Poole, Tanya
Stover, Sandra Turner, Lawanna Thomas, Leapolia Rosinson, Tanya
Jackson, Ronda Coney, Alban Roberts, Catherine Williams, Bobby
Parrish, Mary Parrish, Quaraetta Quaintance, Olivia McRae, Susan
Renee Meredith, Laura Smith, Larrisa Dickerson, Atonia Jossey-
Williams, Anabel Torres, Brittany Eiligson, Sherry Collins, Jerry
White, Rosa Kermerly, Anthony Reddick, Nerita Buckman, Cynthia
Jennings,LynetteThompson, Barbara Jamerson,Lavan White, Dolores
Whitfield, Susan Hardy, Marielly Jimenez,Emma Santiago, Daisy
Mejia, Lavoid Davis, Dorothy Muller, Lucinda Paden Taylor, Yvonne
Bear, Ilene Thomas-Jackson, Ramon Turner, Claretha Jackson, Gloria
Green, Nina Busch, Blaine Gilmore, Marsha Bozich, Jessica Smith,
Monique Scott, Beverly Smith, Janice Burch, Tamara Welch, Elisha
Mims-Wojcichowski, Frank Connell, Laterrel Lester, Do Keim, Mendy
Singletary, Michelle Green, Sabrina Sandel, Lisa Denslow, Doreen
Spilhnan, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, v. First Student Management LLC, and First
Student Inc., Defendants, Case No.: 3:16-cv-00557-HES-MCR (M.D.
Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks actual damages, back pay, liquidated
damages, attorney' fees and costs and all other equitable remedies
under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Plaintiffs were employed by First Student as bus drivers and
driver assistants, in the intrastate transportation of students to
local municipal schools and providing students intrastate
transportation to extracurricular activities.

The Defendants allegedly do not compensate the Plaintiffs for
prep-time period prior to actual bus trip as well as the post
inspection activities they conduct after the buses are parked.

First Student Management LLC is a corporation located at 1812
South 12th Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania and is a subsidiary of
First Student Inc., a foreign corporation located at 705 Central
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio. Defendants operate out of approximately
37 separate bus yards in the state of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick T. Cronin, Esq.
      CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
      10000 Lincoln Drive, Suite 202
      Marlton, NJ 08054
      Tel: (856) 350-6200

           - and -

      Robert Edward O'Connell, Esq.
      ROBERT E O'CONNELL, P.A., Suite 304
      1701 W. Hillsboro Blvd.
      Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
      Tel: (954) 482-0424
      Fax: (954) 977-7676
      Email: reo@reo-law.com

           - and -

      Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq.
      CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
      10000 Lincoln Drive, Suite 202
      Marlton, NJ 08054
      Tel: (856) 350-6200
      Email: sberkowitz@berkpc.com


FITBIT: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors of Fitbit and
underwriters raised $732 million at $20 a share through errors and
omissions, and when the truth emerged the IPO price dropped to
less than $12, a class action claims in San Mateo County Court in
Redwood City, Calif.


FORD: Recalls 2009 and 2008 Vehicle Models Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016186TC
ID number: 2016186
Manufacturer recall number: 16C06

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 - Occupant Protection in
Frontal Impacts. Due to an assembly error involving the driver's
frontal airbag, the second stage of the airbag may to fail to
deploy. As a result, the vehicle may fail to meet the occupant
protection requirements of the standard. This could increase the
risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash where second-stage
airbag deployment is warranted. Correction: Dealers will inspect
the driver airbag module and, if necessary, replace it. Note: The
primary stage of the driver's airbag deployment is not affected.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  LINCOLN    MKS       2009
  FORD                 2008


FORD: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Powertrain
Units affected: 17900
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016183TC
ID number: 2016183
Manufacturer recall number: 16S19

Certain vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission
may experience an intermittent loss of the Transmission Output-
shaft Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Power Control Module. This
could potentially cause an unintended downshift into first gear,
which depending on vehicle speed at the time of the downshift, may
cause the rear tires to slide or lock up until the vehicle slows.
This may result in a loss of vehicle control without warning,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the Powertrain
Control Module with updated software.

  Make       Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  FORD       MUSTANG      2012
  FORD       F150         2011
  FORD       EXPEDITION   2012
  LINCOLN    NAVIGATOR    2012


FORD: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Tires
Units affected: 271
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016185TC
ID number: 2016185
Manufacturer recall number: 16S17

On certain vehicles, the inner sidewall of the affected tires may
have been damaged during vehicle assembly. This could result in a
loss of air or, in some cases, a rupture during use. If this were
to occur, a damaged tire that ruptures or rapidly loses air may
result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect the tires and replace if necessary.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  FORD       F350      2016
  FORD       F250      2016
  FORD       F550      2016
  FORD       F450      2016


FORD: Recalls Explorer 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 4615
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016182TC
ID number: 2016182
Manufacturer recall number: 16S18

Certain vehicles may have been built with an improperly welded
rear suspension toe link. If the improperly welded toe link were
to fracture while the vehicle is in motion, it could result in
rear suspension noise, difficulty steering and/or a loss of
steering control, which would increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace
the rear toe links.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       EXPLORER    2014


FORD MOTOR: Bids to Dismiss "Philips" Warranty Claims Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh denied Ford Motor Company's motions to dismiss
the plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim and
Magnuson-Moss warranty Act claim in the case captioned WILLIAM
PHILIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's May 3, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/pNLnEa from Leagle.com.

William Philips, Jaime Goodman, and Alison Colburn brought the
action against Ford Motor Company, seeking to represent a class of
statewide consumers who purchased or leased Ford Fusion vehicles,
model years 2010 through 2014, or Ford Focus vehicles, model years
2012 through 2014.  The plaintiffs alleged that these vehicles are
equipped with a defective Electronic Power Assisted Steering
("EPAS") system.

William Philips, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, David
Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd PC, John
Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- Grant and Eisenhofer P.A.,
pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Niall
A Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC,
Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C. &
Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C..

Jason Wilkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, Grant and
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C..

Alison Colburn, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes,
Baron Budd PC, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan
Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC & Mark Philip
Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C..

Jaime Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., David Brian Fernandes, Baron Budd PC, Mary Sikra
Thomas, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman
Thomas and Battle, PLLC & Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C..

Robert Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, Grant and
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K.
Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C..

Victoria Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C..

JohnPaul Fournier, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, Grant and
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C..

Ryan Wolf, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, Grant and
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C..

Rebecca Wolf, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson, Spilman Thomas and
Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul, Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C..

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Andrew L. Chang
-- achang@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.,Christopher Scott
McRae -- cmcrae@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Dustin Alan Lane, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Todd
Andrew Croftchik, Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac vice.


FOUR OAKS: Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Motions
--------------------------------------------------------
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
against the Bank has been stayed pending resolution of motions to
compel arbitration filed by the Bank's co-defendants.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, named
the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by
processing Automatic Clearing House transactions indirectly on
behalf of "payday" lenders, the Bank is illegally participating in
an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to
plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of
state law claims.

The Bank moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The Georgia
action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
District of Maryland granted the motion and dismissed the case,
which the parties subsequently settled while on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida has been stayed
pending arbitration of the plaintiff's claims against the Bank's
co-defendants. The Middle District of North Carolina granted the
motion in part and denied it in part; the case against the Bank
has been stayed pending resolution of motions to compel
arbitration filed by the Bank's co-defendants.

Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company was incorporated under the laws of
the State of North Carolina in 1912. On February 5, 1997, the Bank
formed Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. for the purpose of serving as a
holding company for the Bank.


FOX INSTITUTE: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Employment Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON KELSEY, and other similarly situated employees on the basis
of disability; the Plaintiff, v. Fox Institute of Business, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6066811-S (Conn. Super. Ct.,
March 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's violation of the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has a physical disability. The Plaintiff underwent
surgery to remove a portion of her colon and remove her uterus.
She also received rectal seal repair and a pelvic floor lift.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff sustained emotional
pain, suffering, embarrassment, shame, inconvenience, mental
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, impairment of her personal and
professional reputation, damage caused by the Plaintiffs loss of
insurances and savings and investment opportunities. The Plaintiff
filed charges against defendant with the Connecticut Commission on
Human Rights and Opportunities.

Fox Institute was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes schools offering courses in business machine operation,
office procedures, and secretarial skills.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Sabatini, Esq.
          SABATINI & ASSOCIATES LLC
          1 Market Square
          Newington, CT 06111
          Telephone: (860) 667 0839
          Facsimile: (860) 667 0867
          E-mail: jsabatini@sabatinilaw.com


GARDA CL: "Tessono" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Tessono and Louis A. Florissant, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Garda CL
Atlantic, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01276-SJF-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium pay and unpaid spread-of-hours premiums wages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and/or refused to
pay Plaintiffs overtime premium pay for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per work week.

Garda CL was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ann Ball, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANN BALL
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Telephone: (631) 864 8700
          Facsimile: (631) 864 1415
          E-mail: ann.ball@mac.com


GARDA CL: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------
Bryan Moreno, Celso Gonzalez, and Oscar Sosa, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
State of California and the workforce in the interest of the
general 17 public, the Plaintiffs, v. Garda CL West, Inc., and
Does 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16807542 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 15, 2016), seeks to unpaid wages and all
available remedies, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
overtime, maintain accurate records, provide proper rest and meal,
and reimburse work expenses.

Garda CL was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          Kevin Brunner, Esq.
          Sonya Mehta, Esq.
          EmilyRose Johns, Esq.
          SIEGEL: & YEE
          499 14th Street, Suite 300
          Oakland, California 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839 1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444 6698
          E-mail: DanSiegel@siegelyee.com
                  kevinbrunner@siegelyee.com
                  sonyamehta@siegelyee.com
                  EmilyRose@siegelyee.com


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Defending Class Suits Over Heartland Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that the Company is
defending a class action lawsuit related to its proposed
acquisition of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.

The Company said, "Heartland, Heartland's board of directors,
Global Payments, Data Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Global Payments, which we refer to as "Data Merger
Sub One") and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary
of Global Payments, which we refer to as "Data Merger Sub Two")
have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
challenging the proposed acquisition of Heartland. The suit was
filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil
Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment
Systems, et al, L-45-16 (filed January 8, 2016). An amended
complaint was filed on February 29, 2016."

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland
stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate
consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the
merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing
a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. In addition, the complaint alleges that
Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the
acquisition, rescission of the mergers or rescissory damages to
the extent they have already been implemented, and an award of
damages and attorney's fees. We believe the lawsuit is without
merit."


GRUPPO CHIARELLO: "Page" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------
Katherine Page and Asja Sever, as individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Gruppo Chiarello
LLC, a California limited liability company; Serra Hospitality
Group, LLC, a California limited liability company; Does 1-50,
inclusive; and Chiarello Chiarello, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. CGC 16 550963 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2016), seeks to
recover minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation, meal
breaks and expenses under California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order and the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally disregard
the rights of the Plaintiffs in receiving all lawful wages for all
hours worked and lawful meal and rest periods.

The Defendants operate a restaurant in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelley Armstrong, Esq.
          Matthew P. Vandall, Esq.
          Matthew J, Wayne, Esq.
          THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          302 Caledonia Street, Suite 4
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331 4400
          Facsimile: (415) 331 4407
          E-mail: kelly@thearmstronglawfirm.com
                  matt@thearmstronglawfirm.com
                  mwayne@thearmstronglawfirm.com


HOBART SERVICE: Alcantar Supplements Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSELUIS ALCANTAR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOBART SERVICE, a
division of ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC, ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. ED CV11-01600 PSG SP (C.D. Cal.),
filed with the Court his supplemental memorandum of points and
authorities in support of his motion for class certification.

Mr. Alcantar contends that his case presents one question for
certification: Is time Service Technicians ("STs") spend hauling
the Defendants' tools and parts to and from the first and last job
of the day compensable?  He notes that the parties do not dispute
the facts pertinent to this question.

The Defendants uniformly do not compensate STs for the time spent
transporting the inventory of parts and equipment to and from the
first and last job site of the day unless the miles driven exceed
a set amount, Mr. Alcantar tells the Court.  He argues, among
other things, that the Department Labor Standards Enforcement
stated that while normal commute time is not compensable, if an
employee transports "equipment, goods or materials for the
employer," the time is "compensable."

A copy of the Supplemental Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wR0GUPDg

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com


HUMPHREY RICH: Faces "Rojas-Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy F. Rojas-Rios, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals v. Humphrey Rich Construction Group, Inc.,
Dynamo Painting LLC, and Edgar Uriona Cabrera, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00847-APM (D. Col., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with their
principal place of business located at 10200 Old Columbia Road,
Suite K, Columbia, Maryland 21046.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq.
      Rebekah Miller, Esq.
      Benjamin Douglas, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
      4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 627-5510
      Facsimile: (703)820-0630
      E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com


IDENTIV INC: "Ruggiero" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the "Ruggiero"
class action lawsuit filed in California has been dismissed.

On December 7, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Ruggiero
v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05583.

The complaint in that lawsuit alleged violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information in certain public filings and
disclosures between 2013 and 2015.  The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On December 16, 2015, that lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

Identiv is a global security technology company that secures data,
physical places and things.


IDENTIV INC: Facing Shareholder Actions in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that between December 2015
and February 2016, a number of other shareholder lawsuits were
filed.

On December 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v.
Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.

In addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed
between January and February 2016.  On January 1, 2016, certain of
the Company's present and former officers and directors were named
as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in
a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Oswald v. Humphreys, et al., Case No. 16-cv-00241-JCS, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control claims.

On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company's present and former
officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company
was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, entitled Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No.
RG16801379, alleging breach of fiduciary duty claims.

On February 9, 2016, certain of the Company's present and former
officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company
was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, entitled Wollnik v. Wenzel, et al., Case No.
HG16803342, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste,
gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment claims.

These lawsuits generally allege that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in
certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015.
Each of the lawsuits seeks one or more of the following remedies:
unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified exemplary or
punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable and
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of
each of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible
loss, if any, which could be material, and the resolution of these
lawsuits may harm its business and have a material adverse impact
on its financial condition.

Identiv is a global security technology company that secures data,
physical places and things.


INTERSTATE CLEANING: "Rodriguez" Removed Suit to Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Osmel Rodriguez and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees v. Interstate Cleaning
Corporation and John E. Brauch, Jr., Case No. 16-08642-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, FL to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21597-KMW to the
proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a janitorial and maintenance company
servicing shopping centers, and lifestyle centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              ts@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert Bleakley, Esq.
      M. Kristen Allman, Esq.
      THE BLEAKLEY BAVOL LAW FIRM
      15170 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33613
      Telephone: (813) 221-3759
      Facsimile: (813) 221-3198
      E-mail: rbleakley@bleakleybavol.com
              kallman@bleakleybavol.com


INTREXON CORP: "Gibrall" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Patrick M. and Deborah P. Gibrall, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intrexon
Corporation, Randal J. Kirk and Rick L. Sterling, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02457-RS (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws, and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Defendant Intrexon is a company incorporated under the laws of
Virginia and headquartered in Germantown, Maryland and is into the
field of synthetic biology. It maintains offices in South San
Francisco, California. Kirk served as the Company Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer and Director while Sterling served as the
Chief Financial Officer.

Defendants allegedly overstated Intrexon's revenue for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2015. Intrexon shares fell $9.73 per
share or approximately 26% from its previous closing price to
close at $27.10 per share on April 21, 2016. Investors such as the
Plaintiff lost substantially.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

           - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

           - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Fax: (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


JAVELIN MORTGAGE: Baltimore Court Rejects Injunction Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. (NYSE: ARR, ARR PrA and ARR PrB)
("ARMOUR") and JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. (NYSE:JMI)
("JAVELIN") on April 1 announced that the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City has denied a motion seeking to enjoin ARMOUR's
completion of its previously announced tender offer to purchase,
through its newly formed subsidiary, JMI Acquisition Corporation
("Acquisition"), all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
JAVELIN ("JAVELIN Common Stock") for $7.18 per share in cash (the
"Tender Offer").  The Court's order, entered in a putative class
action captioned Stourbridge Investments Ltd. v. Staton, et al.,
(Case No. 24C16001542), denied a request for a preliminary
injunction.

On April 6, 2016, the Companies announced that ARMOUR has
completed its $85.2 million cash acquisition of JAVELIN through a
second-step merger.


JIMMY MCDUFFIE: Faces "Scott" Suit in S.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Jimmy McDuffie. The case is
captioned Brandon Tyler Cannon and Andrea Nicole Scott,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Jimmy McDuffie, in his official capacity as
Effingham County Sheriff, and Donald White, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00098-LGW-GRS (S.D. Ga., April 29, 2016). The Assigned
Judge is Hon. Lisa G. Wood.

The Effingham County Sheriff's Office has watched over and served
the people of Effingham County since 1833.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin D. Maines, Esq.
          Law Office of Justin Maines
          114 Barnard Street, Suite 2C
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 358 8485
          Facsimile: (912) 231 1251
          E-mail: jd@thenyelawgroup.com


JOE TEX XPRESS: "Crump" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crump, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joe Tex Xpress, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00051 (N.D. Tex., March 11, 2016) has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of East Texas on May 5,
2016, under Case No. 5:16-cv-00063-RWS-CMC.

Defendant allegedly denied Plaintiff proper overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The suit seeks declaratory relief,
unpaid overtime pay, liquidated and/or other damages, attorney's
fees and costs.

Joe Tex Inc is a transportation solution provider located at 619
W. Rutherford St. Mt. Vernon, TX 75457. Defendant employed
Plaintiff as a sand coordinator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
      3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (954) 585-4878
      Fax: (954) 585-4886
      Email: jloren@lorenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jay K Rutherford, Esq.
      Jackson Walker LLP
      777 Main St., Suite 2100
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 334-7246
      Fax: (817) 334-7290
      Email: jrutherford@jw.com


JOHN WETZEL: Faces "Stradford" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against John Wetzel. The case is
captioned Lacey Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse Stroud, and
William Scott, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. John Wetzel, Secretary Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (PADOC), the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02064-JS (E.D. Penn., April 29, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Juan R. Sanchez.

PADOC is the Pennsylvania state agency that is responsible for the
confinement, care and rehabilitation of approximately 51,000
inmates at state correctional facilities funded by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Cast Iron Bldg. Suite 304 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925 2966
          Facsimile: (215) 925 5337
          E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org


KARL STORZ: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Use of Storz Morcellator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Simmons and Mark Simmons, the Plaintiffs, v. Karl Storz
Endoscopy-America, Inc., a California Corporation; Karl Storz
Endovision, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation; Karl Storz GMBH &
Co. KG, a business entity form unknown, and Does 1-52, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC613903 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15,
2016), seeks recovery for loss of consortium, and such other
relief for injuries suffered as a direct result of use of the
Storz Morcellator during the Plaintiff's surgery.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff allegedly suffered
bodily injuries and other damages as a direct and proximate result
of the use upon and within her of a defective and unreasonably
dangerous surgical instrument, the Storz Morcellator during the
laparoscopic hysterectomy for the treatment of uterine fibroids.

Morcellator is a surgical instrument used for division and removal
of large masses of tissues during laparoscopic surgery. In
laparoscopic hysterectomy the uterus is minced up, or morcellated,
into smaller pieces inside the woman's belly cavity in order to
extract from the abdomen.

KS Endoscopy and KS Endovision designs, manufactures, markets,
tests, promotes, sells and/or distributes Storz Morcellator. Karl
Storz is the parent company of KS Endoscopy and KS Endovision.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne Andrews, Esq.
          John C. Thornton, Esq.
          Lila Razmara, Esq.
          ANDREWS & THORNTON
          2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 748 1000
          Facsimile: (949) 315 3540
          E-mail: aa@andrewsthornton.com
                  jct@andrewsthornton.com
                  lr@andrewsthornton.com


KENSINGTON PROFESSIONAL: Bid to Stay "Weisberg" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JONATHAN WEISBERG, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KENSINGTON
PROFESSIONAL AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 15-08532
DDP (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied Kensington
Professional and Associates LLC's motion to stay the case pending
the outcome of the case, Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. 742 F.3d 409 (9th
Cir. 2014), cert. granted 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015), which is pending
before the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Pregerson held that any decision regarding standing in
Spokeo is not likely to be applicable to the case because the
plaintiff, Jonathan Weisberg, does not allege statutory standing,
or standing based on the mere alleged violation of a federal
statute, but instead states his theory of actual, individual,
concrete injury in the first amended complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's May 3, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/842Ue4 from Leagle.com.

Weisbert brought the putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), on behalf of a putative nationwide
class who received unsolicited calls on their cell phones from
Kensington using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Jonathan Weisberg, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Robert Bacon,
Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC, Suren N Weerasuriya --
sweerasuriya@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill
LLP & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC.

Kensington Professional and Associates LLC, Defendant, represented
by Geoffrey M Gold -- ggold@ecjlaw.com -- Ervin Cohen and Jessup,
Pantea M Yashar -- pyashar@ecjlaw.com -- Ervin Cohen and Jessup
LLP, Beth-Ann E Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder PA, pro hac vice & Lawren A Zann --
lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder PA, pro hac vice.


KS RENOVATION: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Puma, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
KS Renovation Group Inc., James Zammit, and Sylvano [Lnu], Case
No. 1:16-cv-02254 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a construction company with a principle
place of work located at, 9-19 38th Avenue, Long Island City, NY
11101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LA MESA RV: "Hoffer" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
------------------------------------------------
Meakin Hoffer, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LA Mesa RV Center, Inc, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00314-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid back-wages, declaratory relief, liquidated damages
and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant runs an RV sale company located in 9650 Kelly Tractor
Drive, Fort Myers, Florida. It employed Hoffer as an RV salesman.
Plaintiff was denied minimum wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA, Suite 400
      600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 967-5377
      Fax: (954) 327-3016
      Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com


LANNETT CO: Faces "Diamond" Lawsuit Over Digoxin "Price Fixing"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Diamond, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories,
Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Allergan plc; Myland
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. Case
2:16-cv-02077-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2016), alleges a conspiracy to
fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or
doxycycline products.

The Defendants are manufacturers and/or distributors of generic
digoxin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mindee J. Reuben
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
     1835 Market St Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 314-7980
     E-mail: mreuben@litedepalma.com


LEMON-X CORP: "Cuevas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Israel Cuevas and other similarly situated non-exempt employees,
Plaintiff(s), v. Lemon-X Corporation and Kevin P. Kelly, Sr.,
Individually. Defendant(s), Case No. 8:16-cv-01117-VMC-MAP (Fla.
Cir., May 5, 2016), seeks declaratory, injunctive, legal and
equitable relief together with attorneys' fees, costs and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff the required overtime
and/or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty within
a single work week.

Lemon-X provides quick serve and self-serve dispensing products,
cocktail mixers and purees for restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      421 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: No Arbitration for "Nelson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON NELSON AND GALEN LEITH, Appellees, v.
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS SERVICING LLC, LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS I LLC --
JEFFERY W. BUSCH AND MARK CANNON, RYAN BOLANDER, SCOTT SKEEN, AND
BRIAN R. BECKER, Appellants, No. 20141004-CA (Utah Ct. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Utah affirmed the district court's ruling that
Liberty Acquisitions Servicing LLC had waived the right to enforce
the arbitration clauses in the underlying credit card agreements
by filing and pursuing debt collection actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LL9Z3f from Leagle.com.

After the cessation of Liberty Acquisitions' litigation efforts
against them, Jason Nelson and Galen Leith brought suit against
the debt collection company for violations of federal and state
statutes governing debt collection practices.  The complaint also
named as defendants Brian R. Becker, Ryan Bolander, and Scott
Skeen, three employees of Liberty Acquisitions.  The complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA) and the Utah Consumer Sales
Practices Act (the UCSPA) by filing collection actions against
Nelson and Leith despite the expiry of the time bar.  Nelson and
Leith also sought to bring their claims as a class action on
behalf of an unspecified number of similarly situated individuals.
Leith further asserted an individual claim against the defendants
for violating the FDCPA and the UCSPA by serving a writ of
garnishment on Leith's employer eleven or twelve days after the
court dismissed the action against Leith with prejudice.

Ronald F. Price, Attorney for Appellants.

Lester A. Perry -- lap@hooleking.com -- Attorney for Appellees.


LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Leyse" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Leyse, Appellee v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC,
Appellant, Case No. 16-1425 (2nd Cir., May 5, 2016), is an appeal
from a lower court ruling in Case No. 13-cv-5794 (S.D.N.Y., Aug
16, 2013). Mark Leyse brought suit against Defendant Lifetime
Entertainment Services, LLC for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Mark Leyse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

     Todd C. Bank, Esq.
     TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     119-40 Union Turnpike
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Tel: 718-520-7125

Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC is represented by:

     Sharon L. Schneier, Esq.
     Edward John Davis, Esq.
     Eric Joel Feder, Esq.
     DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: 212-489-8230
          212-603-6431
          212-489-8230


LOS ANGELES HOUSING: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Nozzi" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Percy Anderson granted the Plaintiffs' amended motion to
certify class under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure in the lawsuit styled Michael Nozzi, et
al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, et al., Case
No. CV 07-380 PA (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(2):

     All Section 8 beneficiaries whose benefits are administered
     by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles and who
     in the past received, or in the future may receive, notices
     of a Voucher Payment Standard decrease.

The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3):

     All Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles ("HACLA")
     Section 8 tenants, between June 1, 2005, and September 30,
     2006, whose rental contribution for a period not to exceed
     eleven months was greater than it would have been but for
     Defendant HACLA's 2004 decrease in the Voucher Payment
     Standard.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K5AbEjtK


LUCKY FLUKE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Martinez Romero, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lucky Fluke Corp. (d/b/a
Wondee Siam II), Pamuan Likitsansook and Phimploy Likitsansook,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01915-AKH (S.D.N.Y., March 15,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
delivery worker, but he was required to spend several hours each
day performing non-tipped duties unrelated to deliveries,
including but not limited to dishwashing, preparing food,
assisting the cooks and cleaning. The Plaintiff regularly worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that
he worked each week.

Pamuan Likitsansook and Phimploy Likitsansook own and operate
Wondee Siam II.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


LUNA INNOVATIONS: Court Issued Final Order Approving Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luna Innovations Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has issued
a final order and judgment approving the settlement in the class
action lawsuit related to a merger agreement.

The Company said, "As a result of our merger with Advanced
Photonix, Inc. ("API"), three separate putative class action
complaints were filed on behalf of API stockholders against us and
members of the API board of directors, API, and API Merger Sub.
Two actions (captioned Clark v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No.
15-169-CB and Panzer v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No. 15-214-
CB) were filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw of
the State of Michigan (the "Court") and one action (captioned
Henderson v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., C.A. No. 10715) was filed in
the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (collectively, the
"Stockholder Litigation")."

"In general, the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Litigation alleged
that API's directors breached their fiduciary duties to API's
stockholders by, among other things, agreeing to sell API to Luna
at an inadequate price, implementing an unfair process, agreeing
to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that purportedly
favored Luna and deterred alternative bids, and/or omitting
material information from the Registration Statement on Form S-4
that we filed with the SEC in connection with the merger. The
complaints also generally alleged that API and Luna aided and
abetted the API directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints sought, among other things, an injunction against
consummation of the merger and an award of costs and expenses,
including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees.

"In March 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
Stockholder Litigation by entering into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU"). Under the terms of the MOU, API agreed
to provide additional disclosures to its stockholders, which were
included in an amendment to our Registration Statement on Form S-
4.

"In October 2015, plaintiff in the Henderson action dismissed his
case with prejudice, and the Court consolidated the Clark and
Panzer actions (the "Consolidated Action"). In November 2015, the
parties signed a Stipulation of Settlement and submitted it to the
Court for approval.

"On March 17, 2016, the Court issued a final order and judgment
approving the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and
dismissing the Consolidated Action (the "Judgment"). The Judgment
provides, among other things, a full release of all claims against
the defendants related to the merger and an award of $250,000 in
fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

Luna Innovations Incorporated develops, manufactures and markets
fiber optic sensing and test & measurement products focused on
bringing new and innovative technology solutions to measure,
monitor, protect and improve critical processes in the aerospace,
automotive, energy, composite, telecommunications, and defense
industries.


MATT PAK: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Release of Documents
---------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Petitioner, v. Matt Pak, Inc. and the Chicago
Rabbinical Council, Inc., the Respondents, Case No. 2016-L-002708
(Ill. Cir. Ct., March 15, 2016), petitions the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 204, for the issuance of Cook County Subpoenas for Documents
to Respondents, Matt Pak, Inc. and the Chicago Rabbinical Council,
Inc.

According to the complaint, Hoffman is the plaintiff with respect
to a matter pending in the Law Division of the Superior Court of
Bergen County, New Jersey. The Respondents allegedly possess
relevant documents with respect to the New Jersey action. The
Respondents cannot be compelled to produce the relevant documents
unless they are served with Cook County Subpoenas.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Evan Lincoln Moscov, Esq.
          MOSCOV LAW
          Cook County Attorney No. 49274
          653 N. Kingsbury St., Suite 1501
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-255 7996
          E-mail: evan.moscov@moscov1aw.com


MCCABE WEISBERG: Wright Seeks Certification of New Yorkers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action titled WILLIAM WRIGHT, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class v. MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-04757-
JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify one class, defined as:

     (a) all natural persons with New York addresses (b) who were
     sent a letter in the form represented by Exhibit A (c)
     addressed to the same address as that of the mortgaged
     property (d) which property involves the ownership by the
     person of one or two dwelling units (condominiums and
     cooperative apartments are included) (e) which letter was
     sent on or after August 14, 2014, and (f) on or before
     September 3, 2015.

The Defendant has been attempting to collect from the Plaintiff an
alleged residential mortgage debt incurred for personal, family or
household purposes, according to the Motion.  The Plaintiff
further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC and Kleinman, LLC be appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pdvespRF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692


MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Masuda" Suit in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
Ana Lilia Masuda, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Michael Harrison, Stacy
Fronapfel, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02426-WJM-MF (D.N.J., April 29, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
William J. Martini.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Ricci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
          51 JFK PARKWAY
          FIRST FLOOR WEST
          SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 218 2627
          Facsimile: (973) 206-6955
          E-mail: dricci@njconsumerlawyer.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 0866
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com


MISTRAS GROUP: Mediation Talks Failed, Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit met with a mediator on April 5, 2016 but no
resolution of the case was reached.

In April 2015, two separate lawsuits were filed in California as
purported class action lawsuits on behalf of current and former
Mistras employees. The cases are David Kruger v Mistras Group,
Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California and Edgar Viceral v Mistras Group, et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Both cases were originally filed in California state court and
were removed to the respective U.S. District Courts for the
districts in which the state court cases were filed.

These two cases have been consolidated, with Kruger dismissing his
case and joining the Viceral case. As part of this consolidation,
the claims in the Kruger case that were not part of the Viceral
case were added to the Viceral case by the filing of an amended
complaint. The consolidated case alleges violations of California
statutes primarily, the California Labor Code, and seeks to
proceed as a collective action under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case is predicated on claims for allegedly missed rest
and meal periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to pay
all wages due, as well as related unfair business practices, and
is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, and
various fines and penalties available under California law.

The parties met with a mediator on April 5, 2016 but no resolution
of the case was reached, though the Company anticipates
discussions regarding resolution may continue. The Company is
currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably
estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any,
related to these matters, and accordingly, has not established any
reserves for these matters.


MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls Pacifiers and Clips Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Munchkin Inc., of Van Nuys, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 180,000 LatchTM lightweight pacifiers and clips.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The clip cover can detach from the pacifier's clip, posing a
choking hazard for young children.

This recall involves Munchkin's Latch lightweight pacifiers and
clips sold as a set. The pacifiers were sold in five styles:
designer, rattle and heartbeat clips with 0m+ natural shape
pacifiers, and designer and rattle clips with 6m+ orthodontic
pacifiers. The designer pacifiers and clips 0m+ and 6m+ are in
three color patterns: blue and white strips, orange and with white
polka dots and pink with white polka dots. The rattle pacifiers
and clips 0m+ and 6m+ are green with beads in the pacifier cover
to make a rattle sound and have a polka dot strap. The heartbeat
pacifiers and clips have a red, heart-shaped pacifier cover and
red and white polka dots on the strap.

The firm has received 10 reports (5 in the U.S. and 5 in Canada)
of the clip cover detaching from the pacifier clip. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/aApeSo

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies R Us, Target, Wal-Mart and other mass merchandisers,
juvenile product, baby boutique and discount stores nationwide and
online at amazon.com, munchkin.com and other website from March
2014 through March 2016 for between $11 and $15.

Consumers should immediately take the clip away from young
children and contact Munchkin for a free replacement Lightweight
Pacifier pack with two pacifiers or a full refund.


MURRIETA POLICE: Certification Bid Taken Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips has taken two matters in the lawsuit
titled Jacqueline Elise Fenaroli v. Officer K. Stickleman, et al.,
Case No. EDCV 15-01699-VAP(KKx) (C.D. Cal.), under submission.
The matters are the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations contained in the Plaintiff's second amended complaint,
and the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

Defendants in the case include the City of Murrieta, the Murrieta
Police Department, several of its officers, and certain John Does.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5GX87VOP


NAPLES FLORIDA: "Fox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Robin Fox on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Naples Florida Vacation Homes, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00336-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid back wages and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages for herself and those who opt-in to this
action, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Naples Florida Vacation Homes, LLC is a professional vacation
rental manager specializing in catering to short-term vacationers
offering full-service property management services, where
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as reservation specialist/event
coordinator. She claims to have been denied overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
     Suite 400
     600 N Pine Island Rd
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Tel: (954) 327-5352
     Fax: (954) 327-3017
     Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against National Football League, Inc.
The case is captioned Tracy Scroggins, Quinn Gray, and Danny
Gorrer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Rose Stabler, as spouse of the deceased Kenny Stabler,
and Joseph Horn, the Plaintiffs, v. National Football League, Inc.
(NFL), the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02058-AB (E.D. Penn., April
29, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Anita B. Brody.

NFL owns and operates a football league in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
     HOWARD & ASSOCIATES
     2120 Killarney Way Suite 125
     Tallahassee, FL 32309
     Telephone: (850) 298 4455


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Players Sue Law Firms Over Settlement Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Randolph, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
seven former NFL players claim in court that their former law
firms are wrongly trying to capitalize on their individual
settlements from the league's concussion litigation.

Gale Sayers, Lem Barney, Thomas Skladany, Thomas Vaughn, Jerry
Rush, Kenneth Callicutt and Eric Hipple sued five law firms in
Eastern Pennsylvania Federal Court on April 27, alleging that the
firms have or will file attorney's liens against unearned future
proceeds of the players' individual monetary awards under the
National Football League's concussion settlement agreement.

The firms named as defendants are Hausfeld LLP; Zimmerman Reed
LLP; Locks Law Firm LLC; Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore LLP; and Pope,
McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood PC.

The former players were part of a class-action lawsuit against the
NLF for brain injuries allegedly suffered as a result of playing
in the league. A settlement was reached for nearly $1 billion, and
it was upheld by the Third Circuit on April 18.

Each player had been represented by one of the defendant law
firms, but all ended representation months ago "due to
dissatisfaction for various reasons," their suit claims.

They then hired Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho PLC (CMDA), a
Michigan law firm, to pursue individual awards under the
concussion settlement.

After being relieved of their services, the defendant law firms
filed, or "may assert," attorney's liens regarding the individual
awards, which would "unjustly enrich defendants at plaintiffs'
expense," the 24-page lawsuit claims.

The defendant law firms represented the former players in their
class action, but the players claim that, following that
settlement, their attorneys did little to pursue individual
monetary awards, which led to their firing.

Following the class-action settlement, class members were allowed
to file individual claims, which are separate from the class
action, but "defendant laws firms have not only not completed
substantive work, but have not advanced the plaintiffs' individual
claims for monetary awards under the settlement agreement," the
complaint states.

The former players claim that filing a lien on future awards for
work not performed amounts to "double dipping."

They say that CMDA, their current firm, has instead been
aggressive in pursuing the individual claims, "sending plaintiffs
to neurologists and neuropsychologist for evaluation, reviewing
medical records, evaluating potential claims with doctors,
preparing documents for claim packages, communicating with
physicians, and communicating with clients regarding their
individual claims."

The new firm is therefore solely entitled to a fee on recovery of
individual awards, the former players allege.

"The general sentiment of the plaintiffs is that they are angry
that liens have been or have been threatened to be placed against
future recovery on their individual claims for which virtually all
of the work was done by the law firm of Cummings, McClorey, Davis
& Acho, including sending them to the neurologists and much more,"
says Arthur Goldman, who represents the former players. "All of
the plaintiffs feel that any legal fees off of the recovery on the
individual claims should go to Mr. Acho's firm."

Hausfeld LLP and Zimmerman Reed LLP, two of the defendant firms,
did not immediately respond to requests for comment April 29
morning.

Each former player, with the exception of Sayers, formerly played
for the Detroit Lions. Sayers played for the Chicago Bears.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Narrows Claims in "Cain" Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance granted in part and denied, in part, the
judicial defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in
the case captioned ALANA CAIN, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET
AL. Section: R(2), Civil Action No. 15-4479 (E.D. La.).

A full-text copy of Judge Vance's May 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/VI2gpf from Leagle.com.

Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed the civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking to declare the manner in
which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court collects post-
judgment court costs from indigent debtors unconstitutional.
According to the plaintiffs, the Criminal District Court and
other, related actors maintain a policy of jailing criminal
defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of
their indigence.

The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, the thirteen judges,
and the judicial administrator moved to dismiss, contending that
the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted because they are entitled to absolute and qualified
immunity.

Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, Plaintiff, represented by William
Patrick Quigley, Loyola Law School Clinic, Alec George
Karakatsanis -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org --  Equal Justice
Under Law, pro hac vice, Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet, Law Office of
Anna Lellelid, LLC & Emily Faye Ratner, Emily Faye Ratner,
Attorney at Law.

New Orleans City, Defendant, represented by Adam J. Swensek, City
Attorney's Office, Cherrell Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office,
Churita H. Hansell, City Attorney's Office & Sharonda R. Williams
-- swilliams@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Robert J. Kazik, Judicial
Administrator, Laurie A White, Benedict Willard, Keva Landrum-
Johnson, Robin Pittman, Byron C. Williams, Camille Buras, Karen K.
Herman, Darryl Derbigny, Arthur Hunter, Franz Zibilich, Harry E
Cantrell, Defendants, represented by Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C., Celeste Brustowicz, Burglass & Tankersley,
L.L.C., Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.
& Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..

Marlin N. Gusman, Orleans Parish Sheriff, Defendant, represented
by Blake J. Arcuri, Usry, Weeks & Matthews, Freeman Rudolph
Matthews, Usry, Weeks & Matthews, Inemesit U. O'Boyle, Chehardy,
Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, James
McClendon Williams, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, Matthew Arthur Sherman,  Chehardy, Sherman,
Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP & Timothy R.
Richardson, Usry, Weeks & Matthews.

Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Court, Defendant, represented by Dennis
J. Phayer, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Celeste Brustowicz,
Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..

Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Elizabeth A.
Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..

Dennis Waldron, Ad Hoc Judge Sect. D of the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A.
Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..

Jeff Landry, Movant, represented by Emily G Andrews, Louisiana
Department of Justice & Madeline S. Carbonette, Louisiana
Department of Justice.


NEWPORT CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in "Chung" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newport Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, that a
putative class action complaint captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport
Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed on March 9, 2016,
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint names
as defendants the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and certain current
and former members of the Company's board of directors.  The
complaint alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to sell
the Company through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair
deal-protection devices.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which added additional allegations, including
that the preliminary proxy statement for the Merger dated March
14, 2016 omitted material information.  The amended complaint
names as defendants the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the
members of the Company's board of directors.


NEWPORT CORPORATION: Faces "Pincon" Class Action in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------
Newport Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, that a
putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v.
Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, was filed on March
25, 2016, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf
of a putative class of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint
names as defendants the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the
members of the Company's board of directors.  The complaint
alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company through an
inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, and by agreeing to preclusive deal-protection
devices.  The complaint also alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by failing to
disclose all material information concerning the Merger in the
preliminary proxy statement for the Merger dated March 14, 2016.
The complaint further alleges that the Company, Parent and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin or rescind the Merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.


NEW YORK TIMES: "Grant" Sues over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------
Ernestine Grant and Marjorie Walker, on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. The New York Times Company, Mark Thompson, in his
individual and professional capacities and Meredith Levien, in her
individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03175 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2016), seeks (i) an injunction and
order permanently restraining Defendants, (ii) damages, (iii)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (iv) liquidated damages,
(v) liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law for loss
of past and future income, wages, compensation, seniority, and
other benefits of employment, (vi) non-monetary and/or
compensatory damages, (vii) punitive damages, (viii) reasonable
attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief for
violation of the Equal Pay Act, New York State Human Rights Law,
New York Executive Law, New York City Human Rights Law, New York
City Administrative Code, New York Equal Pay Law and New York
Labor Law.

Grant and Walker are employed in the Advertising division at the
Times and have experienced discrimination and were retaliated
against, when they complained about such discrimination. Defendant
allegedly favors younger, white and male employees. Grant and
Walker are above 60 black, female employees of the Defendant.

The New York Times Company is a domestic publishing company
located at 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, with Mark
Thompson as CEO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
      Lawrence M. Pearson, Esq.
      Elizabeth J. Chen, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
             lpearson@wigdorlaw.com
             echen@wigdorlaw.com



NISSAN: Recalls Sentra 2013 Model
---------------------------------
Starting date: April 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 53774
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016178TC
ID number: 2016178
On certain vehicles, installing a child seat in the front
passenger seat could deform the seat belt bracket. This could
cause the occupant classification system (OCS) sensor to fail to
detect the installed child seat. In the event of a crash, the
airbag would not be suppressed which would increase the risk of
injury. Correction: Dealers will reinforce the seatbelt bracket
and update both the air bag control unit and electronic control
unit.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  NISSAN     SENTRA      2013


NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 258170
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016179TC
ID number: 2016179

On certain vehicles, a defect in the occupant classification
system could allow an adult sitting in the front passenger seat to
be classified as a child or an "empty seat". This would suppress
the airbag, which could increase the risk of injury in a crash.
Correction: For affected Altima, Maxima, Murano, Rogue and Sentra
vehicles, dealers will reprogram the airbag control unit and the
occupant classification system control unit. For affected Leaf,
NV200, Pathfinder, Q50 and JX35/QX60 vehicles, dealers will
replace the occupant classification system electronic control
unit.

  Make       Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----         ----------------------
  NISSAN     PATHFINDER    2013
  NISSAN     MAXIMA        2016
  NISSAN     ALTIMA        2013
  NISSAN     MURANO        2015
  INFINITI   JX35          2013
  NISSAN     NV200         2013
  INFINITI   Q50           2014
  NISSAN    LEAF           2013


NORTH MERRICK: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Mendoza, Froilan Sandoval and Jaime Sandoval, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. North Merrick Fruits, Inc. d/b/a Pat's Farms;
Pasquale Tuosto; and any other related entities, the Defendants,
Case No. 601974/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 29, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor
Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

According to the complaint, beginning in March 2010 and continuing
through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.

North Merrick is a fruit and vegetable market located in Merrick,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Zippel" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is
captioned Robert Zippel, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02152 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2016).

Northland Group provides business process outsourcing services
focused on accounts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NOVARTIS CORPORATION: "Dickerson" Suit Moved to Texas Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Dickerson, on behalf of herself, the Plaintiff, v. Novartis
Corporation and Alcon Laboratories Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-01980, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas (Fort Worth). The District of Texas assigned
Case No. 4:16-cv-00305A to the proceeding.

Novartis is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that
provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Alexandra Harwin, Esq.
          Andrew C Melzer, Esq.
          David W Sanford, Esq.
          Felicia M Medina, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402 5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402 5651
          E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  aharwin@sanfordheisler.com
                  amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  fmedina@sanfordheisler.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather K McDevitt, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 819 8200
          E-mail: hmcdevitt@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Kerry Alan Scanlon, Esq.
          Jeremy White, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          901 Fifteenth St NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2327
          Telephone: (202) 682 3500
          E-mail: kscanlon@kayescholer.com
                  jeremy.white@kayescholer.com

               - and -

          Darnell Stybel Stanislaus, Esq.
          David R Marriott, Esq.
          Evan R Chesler, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474 1079
          E-mail: dstanislaus@cravath.com
                  dmarriott@cravath.com
                  echesler@cravath.com


NQ MOBILE: Final Order Approving Settlement Issued
--------------------------------------------------
NQ Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has issued a
final order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing a
class action lawsuit with prejudice.

The Company said,"On October 25, 2013, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit against our company, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, six more putative shareholder
class action suits against our company and certain current and
former directors and officers of our company were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Ho v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7608
(S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 28, 2013); Ghauri v. NQ Mobile, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7637 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October
29, 2013); Pang v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13
CIV 7685 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 30, 2013); Hiller v. NQ
Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7713 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed on October 30, 2013); Gangaramani v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7858 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 5,
2013); Martin v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
8125 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 14, 2013)."

"On December 2, 2013, another putative shareholder class action
suit against our company and certain current and former directors
and officers of our company, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

"On January 6, 2014, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff. On April 9, 2014, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York consolidated the six
putative shareholder class action suits filed in that court under
the caption, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 13 CIV 7608 (S.D.N.Y.) ("In re NQ Mobile, Inc.
Securities Litigation"), and appointed a lead plaintiff.

"On May 13, 2014, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and was
accepted by the Southern District of New York as related to the
consolidated putative shareholder class action, In re NQ Mobile,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On July 21, 2014, the lead plaintiff in In re NQ Mobile, Inc.
Securities Litigation filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Consolidated Complaint") against us, our former co-chief
executive officer Henry Yu Lin, former co-chief executive officer
Omar Sharif Khan, chief operating officer and acting chief
financial officer Vincent Wenyong Shi, former chief financial
officer Suhai Ji, former chief financial officer Kian Bin Teo
(collectively the "NQ Defendants"), and our former auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers ZhongTian LLP and its affiliate,
PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited.

"Similar to the previously filed complaints, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that various press releases, financial
statements and other related disclosures made by our company
during the alleged class period contained material misstatements
and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and
that such press releases, financial statements and other related
disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's ADSs.
The Consolidated Complaint states that the lead plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from March
6, 2013 to July 3, 2014, and, similar to previous complaints filed
in the putative class actions, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2013).

"On March 3, 2015, we notified the court that the lead plaintiff
and the NQ Defendants had reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims against the NQ Defendants for $5.1 million,
subject to court approval.

"On November 17, 2015, the court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement. On March 11, 2016, after holding a settlement
fairness hearing, the court approved the proposed settlement and
issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the case with prejudice. This settlement will not have
a material impact on our financial statements as the settlement
amount, except for applicable deductibles, is covered by
insurance."


NQ MOBILE: Still Defends "Finocchiaro" Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NQ Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the "Finocchiaro" class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On August 14, 2015, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit, Finocchiaro v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 15 CIV 06385 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against our company and certain of our former and current
officers."

"On September 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
On November 20, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
against us, our former co-chief executive officer Omar Sharif Khan
and our vice president of capital markets Matthew Mathison.

"The Second Amended Complaint alleges that various press releases
and other disclosures made by our company during the alleged class
period contained material misstatements and omissions, in
violation of the federal securities laws, and artificially
inflated the value of our company's ADSs. The Second Amended
Complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
trading activities related to our ADSs from November 1, 2013 to
May 15, 2015, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b)
and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5.

"On January 19, 2016, the company, Khan and Mathison submitted a
letter to the court pursuant to the presiding judge's individual
practices to identify the bases for our anticipated motions to
dismiss, or alternatively, to strike the Second Amended Complaint,
and to request a pre-motion conference.

"On January 20, 2016, Khan submitted a supplemental letter to the
court. On January 26, 2016, plaintiffs submitted a letter to the
court responding to the letters submitted by our company, Mathison
and Khan, in which plaintiffs sought leave to amend the Second
Amended Complaint.

"On February 16, 2016, the court issued a ruling that plaintiffs
should promptly file, if they can consistent with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11, a Third Amended Complaint and then comply with
the notice and lead plaintiff provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On March 3, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Complaint. The action remains in its preliminary stages.
We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the
action vigorously."


NRA GROUP: Joseph Bernal Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Bernal, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRA GROUP, LLC,
a Pennsylvania limited liability company, d/b/a National Recovery
Agency, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
certify a class.

The complaint, filed on February 3, 2016, alleges that the
Defendant's debt collection letter attempts to collect "Costs" at
a flat 16% rate when it had no right to do so.  The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In his amended motion, the Plaintiff moves for class
certification, and asks that the Court allow him to represent a
class of all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois
from whom the Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
debt allegedly owed for a Six-Flags account, via a collection
letter identical to the letter that is attached to the Complaint,
as to which a percentage based charge for "Costs" had been added
to the debt, from one year before the date of the complaint to the
present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WWRjE26R

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


OGLETHORPE POWER: Still Defends Patronage Capital Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the patronage capital litigation.

The Company said, "On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia
Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2014. The
amended complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution
practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify
a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed
by four former consumer-members of four of our members on behalf
of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members
of our members."

"Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants'
total allocated patronage capital belongs to former consumer-
members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital owed to
former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us
to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs
claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held
by defendants and the proposed defendant class should be retired
immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by
terminating service, or alternatively, according to a revolving
schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its
allocation and seek relief to effect such retirements. Plaintiffs
further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to
establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage
capital retirements on this basis. Plaintiffs also claim that
defendants and the proposed defendant class should be required to
adopt policies to periodically retire the patronage capital of all
consumer-members on a revolving schedule of no longer than 13
years from the date of its allocation. Our first mortgage
indenture restricts our ability to distribute patronage capital.

"Although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make
distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage
indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level
sufficient so that we could comply with the current patronage
capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required
to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be significant for a period
of years.

"On August 20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against us, Georgia
Transmission, and two of our member distribution cooperatives. The
case was filed by two current consumer-members of the two member
distribution cooperatives named in the lawsuit. Similar to the
above described litigation, this complaint challenges the
patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric
cooperatives; however, one notable difference is that the first
case, described above, seeks to bring claims on behalf of former
members while this second case seeks to bring claims on behalf of
current members. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have
(i) retained patronage capital for an unreasonably long period of
time; (ii) conspired with each other to deprive consumer-members
of their patronage capital; and (iii) breached bylaw provisions
allegedly requiring that patronage capital be retired when the
financial condition of the cooperative will not be impaired. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
including an order declaring that the defendants be required to
retire patronage capital "according to a regular, reasonable
revolving plan."

"Similarly to the litigation described above, although not
expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of
our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require
us to raise our rates to a level where we could comply with
current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate
increases required to meet the Plaintiff's demands could be
significant for a period of years. The plaintiffs seek to certify
three plaintiffs' classes but do not seek to certify a defendants'
class.

"In May 2015, the Superior Court judge for both patronage capital
lawsuits appointed a special master to oversee all pre-trial
issues relating to these cases, including motions to dismiss that
we and the other defendants filed in connection with each lawsuit.
In September, the special master issued proposed orders to the
judge to grant our and the other defendants' motions to dismiss
both patronage capital lawsuits on all counts. These orders have
been challenged by the plaintiffs and remain subject to approval
by the Court. If approved, the Court's decision to grant the
motions to dismiss will be subject to appeal.

"We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in the above-
described litigation."

Oglethorpe Power Corporation is a Georgia electric membership
corporation (an EMC) incorporated in 1974 and headquartered in
metropolitan Atlanta.  IOt is owned by its 38 retail electric
distribution cooperative members.


OLD NATIONAL: Settlement of Merger Litigation Reached
-----------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2016, that Old
National Bancorp ("Old National") and Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin
Inc. ("Anchor") anticipate that the proposed merger of Anchor with
and into Old National (the "Merger") would occur on May 2, 2016.
The closing remains subject to the adoption of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated January 11, 2016, by and between Old
National and Anchor (the "Merger Agreement") by the Anchor
stockholders at the Special Meeting of Anchor Stockholders on
April 29, 2016 and satisfaction of all other conditions described
in the Merger Agreement.

Proposed Settlement of Litigation Related to the Merger

On February 25, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, by an individual purporting to be a stockholder of
Anchor. The lawsuit is captioned Parshall v. Anchor Bancorp
Wisconsin, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-CV-120 (W.D. Wis.), and
alleges state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Anchor's board for, among other things, seeking to sell Anchor
through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair price and on
unfair terms. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
consummation of the Merger and damages. The complaint alleges that
Old National aided and abetted the Anchor directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint also includes federal law claims
alleging that the registration statement omitted certain material
information.

On March 31, 2016, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth their
agreement in principle to settle the litigation. While the
defendants deny the allegations in the complaint, they have agreed
to enter into the MOU to avoid the costs and disruptions of any
further litigation and to permit the timely closing of the Merger.
The MOU describes the terms that the parties have agreed to
include in the settlement agreement, subject to confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiff, and describes the actions that the
parties will take or refrain from taking between the date of the
MOU and the date that the settlement agreement is finally approved
by the court.

The MOU, among other things, requires supplemental disclosures
that the defendants have included in the proxy statement and
prospectus dated March 29, 2016. The MOU also provides that the
settlement agreement will include an injunction against
proceedings in connection with the complaint and any additional
complaints concerning claims that will be covered by the
settlement agreement. In addition, the MOU provides that the
settlement agreement will include a release on behalf of the
plaintiff, along with other members of the class of Anchor
stockholders certified for purposes of the settlement agreement,
in favor of the defendants and their related parties from any
claims that arose from or are related to the Merger. The
defendants have agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses as awarded by the court, subject to court approval of the
settlement agreement and the consummation of the Merger. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into the
settlement agreement or that the court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such settlement agreement.
In such event, the MOU may be rendered null and void and of no
force and effect.


OMARA LLC: "Coleman" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Danku Coleman, Plaintiff, v. OMARA LLC and Sharif Omara,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01020 (N.D. Ohio, April 28, 2016),
seeks compensatory and monetary damages for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid wages, and/or liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney fees and non-taxable costs and such other relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Omara LLC is an Ohio corporation that operates Days Inn in
Lakewood, Ohio. Defendants hired Danku Coleman as a night auditor
at Cleveland Ramada Inn and then at Lakewood, Ohio Days Inn where
Defendants employed Coleman as a Front Desk Clerk. Coleman booked
reservations, answered the telephone, drove the motel's van, set-
up breakfast in the lobby and did laundry often rendering in
excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 291-4744
      Fax: (216) 291-5744
      Email: peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com


OMG TACO CORP: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Hernandez and Victor Guzman, on behalf of themselves
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OMG Taco Corp. II, Mohamed Alhidami and Sam Kaplan,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02262 (E.D.N.Y., May 5,
2016) seeks damages and equitable relief for violation of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws, as well as for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment under New York Law.

Defendants operate a Mexican Restaurant located at 213 Montrose
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11206 where Plaintiffs prepped food,
cooked, cleaned dishes and maintained the premises. They claim to
have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Louis Moshe Leon, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 248-5550
      Fax: (516) 248-6027
      Email: lml@employmentlawyernewyork.com


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Marketing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Greenberg, DDS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Co., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01280 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016), seeks to
recover from Defendants all improper overcharges paid as a result
of market conspiracy and seeks to prevent Defendants from
continuing this conduct, thereby allowing entry of effective
competitors into the market for Dental Supplies, resulting in
lower prices in the future.

According to the complaints, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
maintain and extend their dominant collective market power in the
market for distribution of Dental Supplies by acting in concert to
unlawfully and artificially perpetuate entry costs of potential
competitors and barriers to exit of current customers.

Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of dental supplies
in the United States. Henry Schein is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in Melville, Long Island,
New York. Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is
incorporated in Minnesota, and its principal place of business is
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its
principal place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants sell dental supplies to dental practices and
laboratories nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffery H. Squire, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308 5858
          E-mail: squire@bespc.com


PIERRE LANDSCAPE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pedro V. Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pierre Landscape, Inc. and
Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. BC613747 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 15, 2016), seeks to recover penalties for wage statement
violations, earned but unpaid vacation wages, and waiting time
penalties under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other members of the
Vacation Pay Class are entitled to continuation of their wages,
from the day their earned and unpaid but vested vacation wages
were due upon termination until paid, up to a maximum of 30 days.
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and other members of
the Vacation Pay Class have suffered damages in an amount subject
to proof to the extent they were not paid for all wages earned
prior to termination.

The Defendant operates a landscape construction and maintenance
company in and throughout Southern California, working on private
and public works projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH GOLDMAN, PC
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 287 7689
          Facsimile: (818) 287 7816
          E-mail: ken@kengoldmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18520 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807


PD LONG ISLAND: "Servius" Suit Seeks Gratuities Under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Servius, Erver Michel, and Joseph Remy, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PD Long
Island Hotel Associates, LLC; Dow Pre II LLC; Murray Lee Dow II;
Mark Rosinsky; Charles Anderson; Stephen R. Griffin; Reed E. Dow;
Robert Levy; Lynn Decastro; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 604593/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 29, 2016),
seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to Plaintiffs
who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants,
pursuant to Labor Law and the Hospitality Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a policy and
practice of failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiffs and
instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of
Labor Law.

PD Long Island is a contractor in the Hotels (except Casino
Hotels) and Motels industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


PETERBILT: Recalls 567 Vehicle 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016181TC
ID number: 2016181
Manufacturer recall number: 416-B

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices. These vehicles may have been equipped
with a switch that allows operators to turn off the daytime
running light (DRL) while the vehicle is in motion, which is
contrary to the requirements of the standard. No DRL illumination
could render the vehicle less visible to other motorists and
pedestrians during daylight hours, which could increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the existing DRL override switch with a spare
switch and disable the override feature.

  Make         Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----     ----------------------
  PETERBILT    567       2016


PHILADELPHIA FINANCIAL: Suit by Fishman Insurance Trust Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YALE M. FISHMAN 1998 INSURANCE TRUST,
Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA FINANCIAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A
AGL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 11-cv-1283
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Thomas P. Griesa granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss the plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Direct and
Verified Complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Griesa's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/4kaROt from Leagle.com.

The Yale M. Fishman 1998 Insurance Trust, brought the putative
class action on behalf of itself and others who held certain
insurance products sold by Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance
Company f/k/a AGL Life Assurance Company ("PFLAC").  These
insurance products lost value due to exposure to the Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Bernard Madoff.  Against PFLAC, the plaintiff
brought claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud,
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, violation of New York General Business Law
("GBL") Sec. 349, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.  The plaintiff also
brought derivative claims against numerous corporate and
individual defendants on behalf of certain funds in which its
money was ultimately invested.

Yale M. Fishman 1998 Insurance Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
David Avi Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Edward Y. Kroub, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Lauren Elizabeth Karalis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Mario Alba, Jr. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

AGL Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Hutson Brit
Smelley -- hutson.smelley@emhllp.com -- Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP.

Rye Select Broad Market Insurance Fund LP, Rye Select Broad Market
Prime Fund LP, Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund LP, Tremont
Opportunity Fund III, L.P., Defendants, represented by Richard
Walker Trotter -- trotter@thsh.com -- Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse
& Hirschtritt LLP.

Tremont Capital Management, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.,
Tremont Partners, Inc., Rye Investment Management, Robert
Schulman, Stephen Thomas Clayton, Defendants, represented by Seth
M Schwartz -- seth.schwartz@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP.

MassMutual Holding LLC, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
Defendant, represented by Michael Douglas Blanchard --
michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius &
Carol Elisabeth Head, Bingham McCutchen LLP, pro hac vice.

Oppenheimer Acquisiton Corp., Defendant, represented by David Adam
Kotler -- david.kotler@dechert.com -- Dechert, LLP & Robert Warren
Topp, Dechert LLP.

KPMG LLP, Defendant, represented by Gary Frederick Bendinger --
gbendinger@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Gazeena Kaur Soni --
gsoni@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Gregory Gil Ballard --
gballard@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Sandra L. Manzke, Defendant, represented by Carrie Ann Tendler --
carrie.tendler@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, Jonathan David
Cogan -- jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP & Maggie
E. Sklar, Kobre & Kim, LLP, pro hac vice.

Susan Hammond, Defendant, represented by Carrie Ann Tendler, Kobre
& Kim LLP & Maggie E. Sklar, Kobre & Kim, LLP, pro hac vice.


PHOENIX LIFE: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Shevlin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN S. SHEVLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 09-6323 (MLC) (D.N.J.), Judge Mary L. Cooper denied without
prejudice the plaintiff's motion to certify the action as a class
action.

The judge also denied without prejudice the defendants' cross
motion to exclude J. Peter Duran's expert opinions, and directed
the defendants to (1) move to exclude Duran's opinions anew; and
(2) file a proper brief in support that is strictly limited to the
issues they have raised concerning Duran's expert opinions.

Judge Cooper stated that the plaintiffs may move anew for class
certification -- and, if appropriate, for summary judgment on the
issue of liability -- after the court resolves the defendants'
potential new motion to exclude Duran's opinions.

A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's May 3, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/mP9Tcq from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs were issued life insurance policies by the
defendants' predecessor entity, which was a mutual life insurance
company.  The plaintiffs alleged that, at a certain point after
the predecessor was demutualized and converted to a stock company,
the defendants began to receive unjustifiably large aggregate
dividends to the detriment of the dividends to be paid to the
predecessor's original policyholders.

BRIAN S. SHEVLIN, KEITH P. SHEVLIN, ERIN R. TAYLOR, Plaintiffs,
represented by STEPHEN SKILLMAN -- sskillman@szaferman.com --
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C., ARNOLD CARL LAKIND
-- alakind@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER &
LEHMANN, PC, DANIELLE DISPORTO, LEVY PHILLIPS KONINGSBERG, MARK A.
FISHER -- mfisher@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN &
BLADER PC & ROBERT GANNON STEVENS, JR. -- rstevens@szaferman.com -
- SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER PC.

THE PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants, represented by AARON HENRY GOULD -- agould@podvey.com
-- PODVEY MEANOR & SHELDON M. FINKELSTEIN --
sfinkelstein@podvey.com -- PODVEY MEANOR CATENACCI HILDNER
COCOZIELLO & CHATTMAN, PC.


PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: Certification of 2 "Flynn" Classes Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL FLYNN, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class as defined below v. PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL
INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04087-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), asks
the Court to enter an order determining that Count I and II of the
action may proceed as a class action against the Defendant.

Mr. Flynn alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  He brings Count I on
behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or
after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, and on
or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c)
received calls from defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed
using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of a class, consisting of
(a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area codes (b)
who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this
action, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of
this action, (c) received calls from defendant on their cell
phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or
artificial voice.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NxSW60qf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces "Dorrel" Suit Over Standford Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Dorrell and Phillip A. Wilkinson, individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Proskauer Rose, LLP and Thomas V. Sjoblom, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01152-C (N.D. Tex., April 28, 2016), seeks to recover
actual and punitive damages, costs and expenses of suit including
reasonable attorney fees for violation of the Texas Securities
Act, for aiding and abetting, for breach of fiduciary duty, for
fraud and for civil conspiracy.

Stanford Financial allegedly operated a worldwide Ponzi scheme,
and Proskauer and Sjoblom provided legal services to Stanford
Financial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward C. Snyder, Esq.
      Jesse R. Castillo, Esq.
      CASTILLO SNYDER, P.C.
      700 N. St. Mary's Street, Suite 405
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Tel: (210) 630-4200
      Fax: (210) 630-4210
      Email: esnyder@casnlaw.com
             jcastillo@casnlaw.com

             - and -

      David N. Kitner
      STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
      901 Main Street, Suite 4400
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 651-4300
      Fax: (214) 651-4330
      Email: david.kitner@strasburger.com

             - and -

      Douglas J. Buncher, Esq.
      NELIGAN FOLEY, LLP
      Republic Center
      325 N. St. Paul, Suite 3600
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 840-5320
      Fax: (214) 840-5301
      Email: dbuncher@neliganlaw.com

             - and -

      Judith R. Blakeway, Esq.
      Merritt Clements
      STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
      2301 Broadway
      San Antonio, TX 78215
      Telephone: (210) 250-6000
      Facsimile: (210) 250-6100
      Email: judith.blakeway@strasburger.com
             merritt.clements@strasburger.com


RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Wendelle Emily Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled WENDELLE EMILY, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RAINERI
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ANTHONY RAINERI & ASHLEY RAINERI, Case No.
4:15-cv-00282 (RLW) (E.D. Mo.), seeks class certification pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jdoC4GQj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Corwin, Esq.
          Bridget Halquist, Esq.
          SHER CORWIN WINTERS LLC
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 721-5200
          Facsimile: (314) 721-5201
          E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com
                  bhalquist@scwstl.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, Mo 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3333
          Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


RALPH LAUREN: Faces "Dennis" Suit Over Misleading Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY DENNIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1- 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS
(S.D. Cal., May 2, 2016), alleges false and misleading
advertisement of "market" prices, and corresponding phantom
"savings," on clothing and fashion apparel sold in its retail
outlet stores in violation of California's Unfair Competition
Laws, California Business & Professions Code, Violation of
California's False Advertising Laws; California Business &
Professions Code and Violations of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Defendants operate Ralph Lauren and related outlet Ralph Lauren
Polo Factory stores as well as the ralphlauren.com website, and
advertise, market, distribute, and/or sell clothing and clothing
accessories in California and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 347-3517
     Fax: (619) 756-6990
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
     ZAVERI TABB, APC
     402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 398-4768
     Fax: (619) 342-8020
     E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Violated California Disabled Persons Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Pizzaro, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Recreational Equipment, Inc. i/a REI,
the Defendant, Case No. RG16813673 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 29,
2016), seeks to recover statutory damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, for violation of the anti-
discrimination state statutes of California, the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, California Code, and the California Disabled Persons
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants denied mobility
impaired/wheelchair-bound persons the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations of any of the REI stores.

REI is a privately held American retail corporation selling
outdoor recreation gear, sporting goods, and clothing via some
retail stores in 36 states, catalogs, and the Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


REDFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Redfrog Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10555

  Brand   Common   Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name    name     ----     product       ---
  ----    ------            ----------
  Wang    Fish     1 kg     2017.07.05    0 87703 11546 0
  Korea   Cake


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Won't Reconsider Denial of Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-
04000-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen denied the motion
filed by the plaintiffs Circle Click Media LLC and CTNY Insurance
Group for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the
court's March 11, 2016 order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 5, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/rLTVFO from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs sued Regus Management Group LLC, Regus Business
Centre LLC, Regus PLC, and HQ Global Workplaces LLC (collectively,
Regus) based on Regus's leasing practices.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs alleged that Regus regularly charged more than the
monthly amount stated in Regus's Office Service Agreement (OSA)
because Regus charges mandatory fees that are not adequately
disclosed until after the lease is signed.  Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs brought claims for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the California False
Advertising Law (FAL), and unjust enrichment.

Circle Click Media LLC, CTNY Insurance Group LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C., Alyce Winn Foshee,
Ari Law, P.C., Craig P Ramsdell, Ari Law, P.C. & S. Chandler
Visher, Law Offices of S. Chandler Visher.

Regus Management Group LLC, represented by Daniel Thomas Rockey
-- daniel.rockey@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin
-- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Tracy Marie
Talbot -- tracy.talbot@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Ali Ari
Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C., Christopher John Schmidt --
cjschmidt@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice, Darci F.
Madden -- dfmadden@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice,
Kenneth Lee Marshall -- klmarshall@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave
LLP, Sara Ahmed, Bryan Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz --
stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus Business Centre LLC, Regus plc, HQ Global Workplaces LLC,
represented by Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP, Tracy Marie Talbot,
Bryan Cave LLP, Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C., Christopher John
Schmidt, Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Thomas Rockey, Bryan
Cave LLP, Darci F. Madden, Bryan Cave LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth
Lee Marshall, Bryan Cave LLP, Sara Ahmed, Bryan Cave LLP &
Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

CTNY Insurance Group LLC, Circle Click Media LLC, represented by
Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C. & S. Chandler Visher, Law Offices of
S. Chandler Visher.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Small Angle Grinders Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Robert Bosch Tool Corp., of Mount Prospect, Ill., announced a
voluntary recall of about 91,000 Bosch small angle grinders (in
addition, 18,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The grinder can overheat while in use, causing the brush covers to
melt and expose the end of the brush holder, posing a risk of
burns to the consumer.

This recall involves Bosch 1380 Slim small, 4.5-inch angle
grinders with date codes 502 through 511. The model number and
date codes are located on the name plate affixed to the underside
of the grinder. The grinders are blue and silver with a black
label and black and red control buttons. "BOSCH" is printed in red
on the side of the product.

The firm has received four reports of the grinders overheating. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/1PbD8f

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Lowe's, Menards, The Home Depot and other home improvement,
hardware stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com,
HomeDepot.com, Lowes.com and Menards.com from March 2015 through
November 2015 for between $50 and $200, depending on the model and
whether it was sold in a combination package with other tools.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled grinders and
contact the firm to obtain a free repair.


RODALE INC: Sept. 7 Final Hearing on "Courter-Owens" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROSE COULTER-OWENS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RODALE
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-12688 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Robert
H. Cleland issued an order granting preliminary approval of a
class action settlement, conditionally certifying the settlement
class, appointing a class representative, appointing class
counsel, and approving the notice plan.

For purposes of settlement only, Judge Cleland conditionally
certified the following settlement class: "All persons with
Michigan street addresses who, between July 1, 2009 and the date
of Preliminary Approval, purchased a subscription to a Rodale
Publication."

Judge Cleland appointed Rose Coulter-Owens as class
representative, and Jay Edelson, Ari J. Scharg, and Benjamin S.
Thomassen of Edelson PC as class counsel for the settlement class.

Final approval hearing will be held on September 7, 2016, at 10
a.m. at the United States District Courthouse at 526 Water Street,
Port Huron, MI 48060.

A full-text copy of Judge Cleland's May 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/XODTc4 from Leagle.com.

Rose Coulter-Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia Elaine Hwang
-- ahwang@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ari J. Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Henry M. Scharg, John C.
Ochoa, SmithAmundsen LLC & James Dominick Larry --
nlarry@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C..

Rodale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony T. Eliseuson --
anthony.eliseuson@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Carol G. Schley,
Clark Hill PLC, Kristen C. Rodriguez --
kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Natalie J. Spears
-- natalie.spears@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Peter B.
Kupelian -- pkupelian@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PLC.

Attorney General Bill Schuette, Intervenor, represented by Joshua
O. Booth, State of Michigan.


ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that "Like many retailers, we
have been named in class action lawsuits, primarily in California,
alleging violation of wage and hour laws and consumer protection
laws. Class action litigation remains pending as of January 30,
2016."

Ross Stores, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate two brands of off-
price retail apparel and home fashion stores -- Ross Dress for
Less(R) ("Ross") and dd's DISCOUNTS(R).


SANTA FE NATURAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Deceptive Trade Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Waldo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, and
Inc., Reynolds American, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-
00427-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., March 15, 2016), seeks to redress for
Defendants' misleading and deceptive trade practices.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class have been
deceived by Defendants' advertising, labeling, and other
statements characterizing Natural American Spirit cigarettes as
100% additive-free, natural and/or organic. In fact, these
cigarettes were not less harmful, healthier or less carcinogenic.
Rather, they were at least as dangerous and harmful as regular
cigarettes, and Defendants were aware of this.

Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier
Natural American Spirit cigarette brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
          Keith R. Mitnik, Esq.
          Marisa Kendra Glassman, Esq.
          Scott Weinstein, Esq.
          Gegory d. Prysock, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl. 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  kmitnik@forthepeople.com
                  sweinstein@forthepeople.com
                  mglassman@forthepeople.com
                  gprysock@forthepeople.com


SHASTA: Recalls Travel Trailers 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 149
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016177TC
ID number: 2016177

On certain travel trailers, the dinette table may not have
adequate support in the lowered position. This condition may cause
the table to fall between the dinette benches, which could
increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will install
additional support pieces to the table.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  SHASTA                 2015, 2015


STANLEY M. GLASER: Faces "Carbonell" Suit in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Stanley M. Glaser. The case is
captioned Rosa Elvia Carbonell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stanley M. Glaser,
doing business as Glaser Organic Farms, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-21539-UU (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Ursula Ungaro.

Stanley M. Glaser provides naturally grown organic produce and
gourmet raw, vegan food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victoria Mesa, Esq.
          MESA-ESTRADA LAW, P.A.
          Compson Financial Center
          1880 North Congress Avenue, Suite 205
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 880 8062
          Facsimile: (561) 828 8359
          E-mal: victoria@mesaestradalaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Scott Schell, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL SERICES, INC.
          Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
          P.O. Box 32159
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
          Telephone: (561) 582 3921
          Facsimile: (561) 582 4884
          E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org


STAR SPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages on Time, "Escobar" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renato A. Del Cid Escobar, an individual, on behalf of the State
of California, as a private attorney general, the Plaintiff, v.
Star Sports Theatre Arts & Recreation Inc.; and Does 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC613923 (Cal. Super Ct.,
March 15, 2016), seeks seeking penalties and other relief, award
providing for payment of costs of suit, award of attorneys' fees
for Defendant's violation of California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to provide
timely wages according to Labor Code was all done on a regular and
consistent basis.

Star Sports offers educational, theater arts, and recreational
enrichment programs to students.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Chicago Suit Alleges Under-Filling of Iced Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a consumer class claims Starbucks' cold drinks are almost
half ice and the coffee chain misrepresents the fluid ounces of
its popular, and profitable, iced coffee and tea beverages.

Lead plaintiff Stacey Pincus filed a class action against
Starbucks Corp. in Northern Illinois Federal Court in Chicago on
April 27.

Starbucks, the largest coffee retailer in the world, makes a good
deal of its money on cold coffee and tea drinks prepared in-store.
In 2014, shaken iced tea drinks were the most profitable menu
addition of the year, according to Pincus' lawsuit.

The company offers three sizes of drinks -- Tall, Grande, Venti
and Trenta -- which correspond to 12, 16, 24 and 30 fluid ounces,
respectively. These fluid ounce measurements are advertised in the
store.

However, Pincus says that Starbucks customers who order cold
drinks are actually getting far less than the advertised fluid
ounces because the company fills a large portion of the cup with
ice.

"A Starbucks customer who orders a Venti cold drink receives only
14 fluid ounces of that drink -- just over half the advertised
amount, and just over half the amount for which they are paying,"
the 29-page complaint states. "In the iced coffee example, a
Starbucks customer who orders and pays for a Venti iced coffee,
expecting to receive 24 fluid ounces of iced coffee based on
Starbucks' advertisement and marketing, will instead receive only
about 14 fluid ounces of iced coffee."

Further, Starbucks charges more for cold drinks than for
comparable hot drinks, despite giving cold-drink customers less of
the product than hot-drink customers; in this way, Starbucks makes
higher profits off its cold beverages, Pincus claims.

"In essence, Starbucks is advertising the size of its cold drink
cups on its menu, rather than the amount of fluid a customer will
receive when they purchase a cold drink -- and deceiving its
customers in the process," the class-action lawsuit states.

Pincus suggests that Starbucks could serve its cold drinks in
larger cups that would allow room to pour the advertised amount of
beverage in the cup and still have room for ice.

Pincus seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased a
cold drink from Starbucks in the last 10 years. She accuses
Starbucks of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warrant
of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment
and fraud.

The class is represented by Steven Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com --
with Hart, McLaughlin & Eldridge in Chicago.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Sued in Ohio Common Pleas Ct. Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gay-Ann Alawode, 28129 Terrace Drive, North Olmstead, Ohio, 44070,
and other similarly-situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Sunrise
Senior Living, LLC, 27819 Center Ridge Road, Westlake, Ohio 44145;
CT Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth St., Cleveland, Oh 44114;
Craig Rakune c/o Sunrise Senior Living, 27819 Center Ridge Rd.,
Westlake Ohio 44145; and Kelly Lane c/o Sunrise Senior Living
27819 Center Ridge Rd., Westlake Ohio 44145, the Defendants, Case
No. CV-16-860475 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, March 15, 2016), seeks
an order requiring Defendants to restore Plaintiff to one of the
positions to which she was entitled by virtue of her application
and qualifications, and expunge her personnel file of all negative
documentation; an award against each Defendant of compensatory and
monetary damages to compensate Alawode for physical injury,
physical sickness, lost wages, emotional distress, and other
consequential damages, in an amount in excess of $25,000 per claim
to be proven at trial; an award of punitive damages against each
Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000; an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs for Alawode's
claims as allowable under law; an award of taxable costs of this
action; and an award of such other relief as this Court may deem
necessary and proper.

Sunrise Senior Living communities provide senior care service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claire T. Wade, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Facsimile: (216) 291 5744
          Telephone: (216) 291 4744
          E-mail: claire.wade@SpitzLawFirm.com


SUNRUN INC: "Baker" Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Baker, Carl Hayner and Ken Morris, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun Inc.,
Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald
Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Eren Omer
Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI,
L.P., Foundation Capital Management Co. Vi, LLC, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, RBC
Capital Markets, LLC Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. CIV538419 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 29, 2016), seeks to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the statements made by Defendants to
the investing public in the Registration Statement and Prospectus
misrepresented material facts about the business and operations of
Sunrun including common stock in or traceable to Sunrun's August
5, 2015 initial public stock offering.

Sunrun is a provider of residential solar electricity and operates
the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy systems" in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Retirement Plan Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Jay Lefkowitz, individually and as Representative of a
class of similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of the LIU
Retirement Account, Retirement Plan, the Continuum Health
Partners, Inc. Plan, the Cabrini Medical Center Plan, the Saint
Barnabas Medical Center TDA Plan, the Mobilization for Youth Plan,
the Yeshiva University plan and similar Plans managed by TIAA, the
Plaintiffs, v. Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association (TIAA),
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01932 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2016),
seeks to recover financial losses suffered by the TIAA retirement
plans and to obtain remedial, injunctive and other equitable
relief from Defendant based upon breaches of its fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has breached its
fiduciary duties by engaging in expensive duplicative mailings to
beneficiaries in retirement plans it administers, unnecessarily
mailing individual monthly statements to beneficiaries in separate
mailings, resulting in expenses paid by the plans that are
unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive, and not disclosed to plan
participants. The Defendant has been aware of the problem for
years, yet has failed to take any remedial steps, despite repeated
promises to correct the problem, and continues to waste literally
millions of dollars on unnecessary mailings.

TIAA (formerly TIAA-CREF) is a Fortune 100 financial services
organization that is the leading retirement provider for people
who work in the academic, research, medical and cultural fields.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Toby Golick, Esq.
          CARDOZO BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES
          55 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 790 0240
          Facsimile: (212) 790 0256
          E-mail: tgolick@yu.edu


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Reviewing Class Action Litigations
----------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is still in
the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the
complaints and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances
as to the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits or the impact of an
adverse resolution.

On October 23, 2015 and October 30, 2015, separate purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, each of the underwriters of
the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO")
and SunEdison.

On December 3, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 4, 2016,
separate purported class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court and against the same defendants. One of the state actions
was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in February 2016.

On October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the same defendants.

The class action plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Registration
Statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating
results and business strategy. Among other relief, the class
action complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs and such
other relief as the applicable court should deem just and proper.
The Company intends to defend the class action lawsuits
vigorously. The Company is still in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
such lawsuits or the impact of an adverse resolution.


TEXAS: "Watson" Suit Over Traffic Cameras Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit vacated the
district court's judgment on the putative class action filed by
James H. Watson and remanded the case with instructions to the
district court to remand the case to the Texas state court whence
it came.

The case is JAMES H. WATSON, And Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALLEN, TEXAS; CITY OF AMARILLO
TEXAS; CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS; CITY OF AUSTIN TEXAS; CITY OF
BALCH SPRINGS TEXAS; CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS, TEXAS; CITY OF
BASTROP, TEXAS; CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS; CITY OF BEDFORD TEXAS;
CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS; CITY OF CEDAR HILL, TEXAS; CITY OF
CLEVELAND, TEXAS; CITY OF CONROE, TEXAS; CITY OF COPPELL TEXAS;
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS; CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS; CITY OF DIBOLL, TEXAS; CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS;
CITY OF EL PASO TEXAS; CITY OF ELGIN, TEXAS; CITY OF FARMERS
BRANCH, TEXAS; CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS; CITY OF FRISCO TEXAS;
CITY OF GARLAND TEXAS; CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE TEXAS; CITY OF HALTOM
CITY, TEXAS; CITY OF HUMBLE, TEXAS; CITY OF HURST, TEXAS; CITY OF
HUTTO, TEXAS; CITY OF IRVING TEXAS; CITY OF JERSEY VILLAGE, TEXAS;
CITY OF KILLEEN TEXAS; CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS; CITY OF LITTLE
ELM, TEXAS; CITY OF LONGVIEW, TEXAS; CITY OF LUFKIN, TEXAS; CITY
OF MAGNOLIA, TEXAS; CITY OF MARSHALL TEXAS; CITY OF MESQUITE
TEXAS; CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; CITY OF PLANO TEXAS;
CITY OF PORT LAVACA, TEXAS; CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS; CITY OF
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; CITY OF ROANOKE, TEXAS; CITY OF ROUND ROCK,
TEXAS; CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; CITY OF SUGAR LAND TEXAS; CITY OF
TOMBALL TEXAS; CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK TEXAS; CITY OF WATAUGA,
TEXAS; CITY OF WILLIS, TEXAS; REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED; AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN
TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; XEROX STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS,
INCORPORATED, formerly known as ACS State & Local Solutions,
Incorporated; STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-10732
(5th Cir.).

The putative class action challenges the use of red light cameras
within Texas and, more specifically, Chapter 707 of the Texas
Transportation Code, which is the legislation authorizing such
cameras.  The case was originally filed in state court and
subsequently removed to federal court.

The Fifth Circuit held that the case belongs in state court.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's May 5, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UE8Quz from Leagle.com.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Huffman" Suit Status Hearing Set for July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 6, 2016, in the case entitled
Richard Huffman, et al. v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-03418 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing set for July 25, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to the next status;

   -- The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for
      discovery supervision as well as settlement discussions;

   -- Initial status report to be submitted to Magistrate Judge
      Finnegan.

   -- Parties shall not engage in discovery until dates are set
      by the magistrate judge.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HHjjbJWU


TRINET GROUP: To Defend Against "Welgus" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
continue to defend itself vigorously against the "Welgus"
Securities Class Action.

On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit
arising under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The case has not been certified as a class action,
although it purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015,
inclusive.  The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03625.

No stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the putative class,
and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr. Welgus as lead
plaintiff.

On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed an amended complaint.  The
defendants named in the case are the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as General Atlantic, LLC, a
significant shareholder, and formerly majority shareholder, of the
Company.  The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company
caused damage to stockholders of the Company by misrepresenting
and/or failing to disclose facts generally pertaining to alleged
trends affecting health insurance and workers compensation claims.
Under a stipulated briefing schedule approved by the Court, the
Company intended to move to dismiss the amended complaint no later
than April 11, 2016.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses against this action and intends to continue to defend
itself vigorously against the allegations of Mr. Welgus.

TriNet Group Inc., or TriNet or the Company, is a provider of
comprehensive human resources, or HR, solutions for small to
midsize businesses, or SMBs, under a co-employment model.
4 stories


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Joint Underwriting Assoc. Litigations Update
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the term to continue
negotiations was extended until March 17, 2016, in the Joint
Underwriting Association Litigations.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and 18 other defendants,
including TSP, alleging violations under the Puerto Rico Insurance
Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the local statute against
organized crime and money laundering. JUA is a private association
created by law to administer a compulsory public liability
insurance program for motor vehicles in Puerto Rico (CLI). As
required by its enabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers
that underwrite private motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and
exceed the minimum underwriting percentage established in such
act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noem¡ Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406.6 million, treble damages under RICO, and equitable
relief, including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment
barring defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along
with costs and attorneys' fees. Discovery has been completed.

Since 2011, TSP has been defending this claim and, jointly with
other defendants, has filed several pleas in connection with the
certification of the class and the dismissal of the claim. On
December 17, 2015, other three defendants filed a joint motion
informing the court that said defendants are conducting
negotiations to settle the claim and requested a 60-day period in
other to continue the negotiations.  Subsequently, the term to
continue negotiations was extended until March 17, 2016.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico, serving
approximately 1,100,000 members, with a 25% market share in terms
of premiums written in Puerto Rico for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2015.  It has the exclusive right to use the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield ("BCBS") name and mark throughout Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, the British Virgin
Islands and Anguilla and over 50 years of experience in the
managed care industry.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing
in the case, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

TSS is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a multi-district class action
litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that alleges that the exclusive
service area (ESA) requirements of the Primary License Agreements
with Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in these
suits seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive
relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Prior to centralization, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS.

The parties have filed several pleas and presented their position
in argumentative hearings before the court in connection with the
motion to dismiss, which was ultimately dismissed without
prejudice by the court.

Also, on April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States
District Court of Puerto Rico, which the Company believes does not
preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. Discovery is ongoing. The
Company has joined BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico, serving
approximately 1,100,000 members, with a 25% market share in terms
of premiums written in Puerto Rico for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2015.  It has the exclusive right to use the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield ("BCBS") name and mark throughout Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, the British Virgin
Islands and Anguilla and over 50 years of experience in the
managed care industry.


TUMI STORES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Tumi Stores, Inc. The case is
captioned Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tumi
Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21526-KMW (S.D.
Fla., April 29, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kathleen M.
Williams.

The Tumi Store is located at 19501 Biscayne Boulevard in Aventura,
Florida 33180.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          Scott R. Dinin, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


TWINGO LLC: Recalls Baby Carriers
---------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
TwinGo LLC, of Mclean, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about
4,000 Baby carriers (in addition, about 160 were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Twin Go Original Carrier is an infant carrier designed to
carry one or two babies against the caregiver's body at the waist.
It is intended for babies that are from 10 to 45 pounds.  "Twin
Go" is printed on a label located on the front of the carrier and
an 11-digit batch number is printed on a label sewn to the
waistband. Batch numbers included in this recall: 23014024003,
01515026003, and 21615019001. They were sold in fabric that is
black on the outside and blue or orange on the inside.

The firm has received 13 reports of buckles breaking worldwide,
including 10 in the U.S., one in Canada and two in the UK. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/P0VlBE

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Boutique stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and
TwinGoCarrier.com from December 2014 through May 2016 for about
$215.

Consumers should immediately stop using the infant carrier and
contact TwinGo for a free repair kit. A free replacement buckle
will be provided with instructions. A repair video is also
available at http://twingocarrier.com/pages/repairkit.


U.S. QUALITY: "Harter" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Harter, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Quality Furniture Services, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00311-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 15,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant utilizes a piece-rate
pay policy that does not include any premiums for overtime hours
worked.

U.S. Quality is a third-party service provider that contracts
directly with furniture retailers and/or their warranty companies
to warehouse, distribute and repair furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407)420 1414
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Suarez" FLSA Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTONIO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-166-T-30MAP (M.D. Fla.), Judge
James S. Moody, Jr. granted the defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Strike Class/Collective Allegations.

The plaintiffs, who were drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc.
during the relevant time, alleged that Uber misclassified them and
other drivers as independent contractors, rather than as
employees.  As a result, the plaintiffs asserted the following
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): they were not
paid for all of the hours they actually worked; they were not paid
at least the Federal minimum wage for each hour worked; and they
were not paid overtime compensation for hours they worked in
excess of forty hours in one week.  The plaintiffs also brought
claims under the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") that
incorporate the same allegations of unpaid wages from the FLSA
claims.  Finally, the plaintiffs alleged a collective action on
their FLSA claims and a class action on their FDUTPA and IRC
claims.

Uber moved to compel arbitration and strike the class/collective
allegations based on arbitration agreements that each plaintiff
executed in connection with their employment.  Uber argued that
the arbitration agreements are enforceable and cover the claims
asserted in this action.  Uber also moved to strike the
class/collective allegations because the arbitration agreements
state that the parties agree to resolve their disputes in
arbitration on an individual basis only.

Judge Moody found that the parties entered into valid and
enforceable agreements to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.
The judge also concluded that the arbitration provision at issue
in the case is not unconscionable under Florida law.  In light of
the fact that the complaint was improperly brought as a
collective/class action, Judge Moody exercised his discretion to
dismiss the action so that the plaintiffs may submit their claims
to arbitration on an individual basis.

A full-text copy of Judge Moody's May 4, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/pbh9Jn from Leagle.com.

Antonio Suarez, Fernando Alegria, Hillary Mitchell, Judhit
Santander, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon J. Hill, Wenzel
Fenton Cabassa, PA & Luis A. Cabassa, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Courtney B.
Wilson -- cwilson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Suit v. Immigration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in two lawsuits -- DUNCAN ROY, et al. v. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES; et al., Case No. CV 12-09012 BRO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.);
and GERARDO GONZALEZ, et al. v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, an entity, et al., Case No. CV 13-04416 BRO (FFMx)
(C.D. Cal.) -- ask the Court to certify a class and subclasses
under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The class and subclasses are defined as:

   (1) The Main Class (Judicial Determination Class) shall
       consist of: "All current and future persons who are
       subject to an immigration detainer issued by an ICE agent
       located in the Central District of California, where the
       detainer is not based upon a final order of removal signed
       by an immigration judge or the individual is not subject
       to ongoing removal proceedings";

   (2) The First Subclass (Probable Cause Subclass) shall consist
       of: "All members of the Judicial Determination Class for
       whom ICE has issued an immigration detainer based solely
       on checks for the individual in government databases"; and

   (3) The Second Subclass (Statutory Subclass) shall consist of:
       "All members of the Judicial Determination Class for whom
       ICE did not issue an administrative warrant of arrest at
       the time it issued an immigration detainer."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint as counsel for the
Class their counsel of record -- the ACLU Foundation of Southern
California, the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, the National Day
Laborer Organizing Network, The National Immigrant Justice Center,
and Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt.

The proposed class action addresses civil rights violations,
beginning in October 2010 and continuing into the present,
stemming from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's
("LASD") alleged practices of arresting and detaining people,
solely on the basis of immigration detainers.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion and a copy of the Notice of Motion are
available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4Ira5hz8
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9OXubYRs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          Ahilan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Peter Bibring, Esq.
          Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq.
          Katherine Traverso, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclu-sc.org
                  jpasquarella@aclu-sc.org

               - and -

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay B. Battles, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844-7600
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  lbattles@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Chris Newman, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK
          675 South Park View Street, Suite B
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 380-2214
          Facsimile: (213) 380-2787
          E-mail: newman@ndlon.org
                  jbansal@ndlon.org

               - and -

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Mark M. Fleming, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1628
          Facsimile: (312) 660-1505
          E-mail: mfleming@heartlandalliance.org


UNITED STATES: Just Compensation Ruling Entered
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT AND OTHER
OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY IN ST. BERNARD PARISH OR THE LOWER NINTH
WARD OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, No. 05-1119 L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G. Braden issued
a memorandum opinion and partial final judgment for just
compensation, and order regarding class certification and
appointment of class counsel.

On May 1, 2015, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion And Order
determining that the plaintiffs established that the Army Corps of
Engineers' ("Army Corps") construction, expansions, operation, and
failure to maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet ("MR-GO")
caused increased storm surge flooding on the plaintiffs'
properties during Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes and
severe storms, effecting a temporary taking under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 6, 2015, the court convened a settlement conference in New
Orleans, during which the parties discussed mediation or
certification of the court's liability decision.  On October 9,
2015, the Government advised the court that it declined to pursue
mediation.  Instead, on October 30, 2015, the Government filed a
Motion To Certify Interlocutory Appeal of the liability decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On November 16, 2015, The plaintiffs filed a Response In
Opposition.  The parties, however, subsequently agreed that the
most appropriate procedure to afford appellate review was for the
court to enter a final partial judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of
the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, as to Just
Compensation due the owners of 11 properties selected by the
plaintiffs and the Government.

A full-text copy of Judge Braden's May 4, 2016 memorandum opinion
and partial final judgment is available at https://is.gd/BE48gp
from Leagle.com.

ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff, represented by Charles
J. Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by William James Shapiro, U.S.
Department of Justice.


VINOCE VINEYARDS: Aug. 2 Case Management Conference Set
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v. BRIAN EDWARD NUSS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02202-CW
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken set the Case Management
Conference to August 2, 2016, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom 2, 4th
Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.  A Case Management
Statement will be due seven days prior to the conference.

The Defendants in the case are Brian Edward Nuss, Lori Brussock
Nuss and Vinoce Vineyards, LLC.

A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's May 5, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/CZIVi5 from Leagle.com.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Thomas
Peter Riley, Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, P.C..


VIOLIN MEMORY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that a court has set a Final
Approval Hearing for July 26, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California naming us and a
number of our present or former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of our September 27, 2013 initial public offering
(the "IPO"). The four complaints were consolidated into a single,
putative class action, and on March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint purporting to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, based upon seven categories of alleged
omissions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock issued in
the IPO."

"The parties have reached a settlement that, if approved by the
Court, will fully resolve the claims brought by plaintiffs on
behalf of the class they seek to represent. The proposed
settlement establishes a settlement fund of $7.5 million in return
for a release of all claims in this matter. The settlement fund
will be paid by our insurance carrier and will not result in any
additional expense us.

"On March 16, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a Final
Approval Hearing for July 26, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will be mailed
to class members and class members will have an opportunity to
submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or object to the
settlement. At the final approval hearing, the Court will consider
the notice process and results, any objections and other relevant
information. The Court will then decide whether to finally approve
the class settlement. If the settlement is approved, the
settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in the settlement
agreement and the Court's orders."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farnbauch" Suit in S.D. Ind.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The case is captioned David L. Farnbauch, individually and
representative of all similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., doing business
as: Volkswagen of America, Inc., a Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00973-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind., April 29, 2016). The
Assigned Judge is Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Crystal D. Pulley, Esq.
          MCCLURE MCCLURE & DAVIS
          235 N. Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 221 0800
          Facsimile: (317) 221 0900
          E-mail: crystal@pulleylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Sherfey" Suit Remanded to Lorain County Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHAD SHERFEY, ET AL., Plaintiff, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16CV776
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A. Boyko denied the defendant's
motion to stay and granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas on the condition
that the plaintiffs first file a separate stipulation on the
amount of damages signed by all plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of Judge Boyko's May 3, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/UJuQfT from Leagle.com.

The complaint was filed by Chad Sherfey and approximately 80 other
named plaintiffs against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. on
February 26, 2016 in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas alleging
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty, rescission and
restitution and punitive damages.  According to the Complaint,
Volkswagen made material misrepresentations concerning the fuel
efficiency and emissions of certain VW models sold to the named
plaintiffs.

Chad Sherfey, Barbara Simpson, Mark Farlow, Dennis Gadley, Sharon
Sheets, David Smart, George Rector, Raymond Stephen, Dennie
Rogers, Raymond Belt, Glenda Prewitt, Harry Rosenfeldt, Monica
Angelone, Warren Coleman, William Harris, Sidney King, Alanna
Lane, Patricia Renaud, Patty Seink, Andrew Snow, Glen Spalding,
Andrew Wang, Carl Weisfelder, Barry Hanenkratt, Ryan Curtis,
Michael Suchecki, Brian Campbell, Jeremiah Grumbling, Peter
Foradas, Jeremy Hinesman, Donald Leonard, Suzan Petrova, Charles
Schmitz, Colin Urling, Thomas Walters, Randall Wilson, Patricia
Williams, Fred Uhlmann, Christine Pyscher, Carol Richardson,
Michael Black, Matthew Chambers, Sunny Hyde, John Rose, Mitchell
Schott, Dave Winnestaffer, Shiloe Steinmetz, Everett Ritchie,
William Heidl, Kenneth Skotniski, William Nichols, Greg Barton,
Jeff Butler, Alan Hale, Zachary Cutright, Boley Greenwood, Ryan
Henricks, Stephen Von Gunten, Joe Timmons, Kevin Armstrong, Troy
Finley, Mark Gocala, Byron Jackson, Mike Duniec, Randall Panter,
Mark Pinskey, Cecelia Green, John Brown, Tia Bryan, Edgar
Gerdeman, John Moran, Ron Soeder, Becky Worthington, Keith Ricker,
Ben Cooper, Jason Jones, Ed Fetro, Greg Goodson, Marjorie Kountz,
Ian Rose, Greg Weiland, Julian Worthy, Ronald Nehlen, II, James
Blank, Robert Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Utley --
dutley@cruglaw.com -- Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, Gregory H.
Collins -- gcollins@cruglaw.com -- Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner
& Taylor Christopher Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger
Garrison Davis

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hugh
J. Bode -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger.


VONAGE AMERICA: "Merkin" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ARTHUR MERKIN; JAMES SMITH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VONAGE AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-55397 (9th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
denial of Vonage America, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 4, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/i3gnwb from Leagle.com.

In the putative class action, Arthur Menkin and James Smith
alleged that Vonage violated California law by charging certain
fees in connection with its Voice over Internet Protocol service.
Vonage filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to its Terms
of Service.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Appeal in Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that the appeal by a
purported class member to a class action settlement is in an early
stage.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court
approval.

On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final
approval of the settlement.

On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to
the settlement appealed the Court's order. The appeal was docketed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
and is in an early stage.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Securities Case in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015.

Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on
December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the
motion on February 5, 2016.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Suits Over Rite Aid Merger Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that each of the
class action lawsuits related to the merger with Rite Aid is still
pending.

On October 27, 2015, Walgreens Boots Alliance entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite
Aid") and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Walgreens Boots Alliance (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which we agreed, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, to
acquire Rite Aid, a drugstore chain in the United States with
4,560 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia as of the
date of the most recent Rite Aid Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
The Merger Agreement was approved by Rite Aid stockholders in
February 2016. The transaction is expected to close in the second
half of calendar year 2016, subject to regulatory approvals and
other customary closing conditions.

As of February 29, 2016, the Company was aware of ten putative
class action lawsuits (the "Rite Aid actions") filed by purported
Rite Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors,
Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims
arising out of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement (the "Rite Aid Transactions"). Eight of the Rite Aid
actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware actions"), one Rite Aid action was filed
in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one Rite Aid
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action").

The Delaware actions and the Pennsylvania action primarily allege
that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other
things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose
all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger;
and also allege that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger
Sub, Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The federal action alleges, among other things, that Rite
Aid and its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions. The Delaware actions were consolidated, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid
shareholder vote on the Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in
the federal action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the same Rite Aid shareholder vote. All such
motions were denied, and the Rite Aid shareholders approved the
Rite Aid Transactions at a special meeting on February 4, 2016.
Each of the Rite Aid actions is still pending.


WARREN UNILUBE: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Marie Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Warren Unilube, Inc., and John Massel,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00264 (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant required and/or
permitted the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week but
refused to compensate them properly for such hours.

Warren Unilube produces lubricants and automotive chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Loren, Esq.
          George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
          Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
          3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (800) 719 1617
          Facsimile: (954) 585 4886
          E-mail: jloren@lorenlaw.com
          rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
          ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Grinenko" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vadim Grinenko, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Weatherford International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00422 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2016) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under Section
216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and other workers worked approximately 120 hours per
week, 7 days a week as tubing conveyor perforation specialists.
They claim that they never received overtime for all of the hours
that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Weatherford is a Delaware limited liability company that currently
maintains its corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas. It
provides equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation,
completion, production, and intervention of oil and natural gas
wells worldwide. It also offers drilling services, rotary
steerable systems, directional drilling services, controlled and
managed pressure drilling, under balanced drilling, air drilling,
well testing, drilling with casing and drilling with liner systems
and surface logging systems. Weatherford serves exploration,
production and transmission sectors of the oil and natural gas
industry.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 West Basse Road, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing This Month on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing is
scheduled this month on a motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske
Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf
of models and the use of model images.  Other parties named as
defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model
management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.

Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the
claims asserted therein against the model management defendants,
and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public
interest."  The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his
decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.
Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has filed a
Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for
alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the
defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.  The Second Amended Complaint also
alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times
employees, and not independent contractors, of the model
management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York
Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by
allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime
pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records,
and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their
wages and deductions therefrom were computed.  The Second Amended
Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action,
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to
most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint.  The motion to
dismiss has been fully briefed, and the Court scheduled a hearing
on the motion to dismiss for April 2016.  That hearing is now set
for May 2016.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Second Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the action.

The primary business of Wilhelmina is fashion model management.


WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Transjugular Intrahepatic Shunt Pack
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 25, 2016
Posting date: April 27, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health CanadaIssue:Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58104

There is an increase in reports of polymer degradation of the
catheter tip, resulting in tip fracture and/or separation.
Environmental conditions, such as storage temperature, humidity,
and the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) for whole-room
decontamination within healthcare facilities, may be contributing
to the occurrence. There may be other undetermined contributors to
this issue and continue to investigate.

Potential adverse events that may occur as a result of catheter
polymer degradation could include loss of device function,
separation of a device segment leading to medical intervention, or
complications resulting from a separated segment. Such
complications include device fragments in the vascular system,
genitourinary system, or other soft tissues. Fragments within the
vascular system could result in embolization to the heart or
lungs, or occluding blood flow to end organs.

Affected products
A. TRANSJUGULAR INTRAHEPATIC PORTOSYSTEMIC SHUNT PROCEDURE PACK
Lot or serial number: All
Model or catalog number: TIPSS-100
                         TIPSS-200

Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS
              Sandet 6
              Bjaeverskov
              4632
              DENMARK


XPO LOGISTICS: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
I. Hernandez and E. Ortiz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XPO Logistics, Inc.,
Pacer International, Inc., XPO Port Services, Inc., Intermodal
Container Services, Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03112 (C. D. Cal., May 5, 2016) seeks to recover
wages, damages, liquidated damages, penalties, civil penalties,
attorney's fees and costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief under the California Labor Code Sec.
226.7 and Industrial Wage Order No. 9-2001.

Defendant XPO Logistics, Inc., is a provider of transportation
logistics services in North America and abroad. It wholly owns
Pacer International, Inc., Pacer Cartage, Inc. and Intermodal
Container Services, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that they were
misclassified as contractors, hence, denied the basic benefits of
employees.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      Rebecca Lee, Esq.
      Christina Nordsten, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
      Glendale, California 91203
      Telephone: 323.962.3777
      Facsimile: 323.962.3004


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *